Thursday, July 21, 2011
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Green Lantern
The key to any good comic book to movie adaptation is to get the essence of the characters and bring them to life exactly as the hardcore fans would envision it. This held true in the original Superman from 1978, Iron Man, The Dark Knight, and other such success stories. Scriptwriters and directors may tinker with some details, change up timelines and plots, but the essence of the characters; what makes them heroes in the first place, cannot be altered.
In the case of Green Lantern, director Martin Campbell faced the challenge of bringing DC Comics’ resident ring-wielding space cop and all of the constructs he can shape with his mind to the big screen. Though many scoffed at the choice of quick-witted Ryan Reynolds for the iconic role of Air Force Capt. Hal “Highball” Jordan, he proves to be a more than capable pilot, albeit a burnout who has made a living of disappointing those around him. Tasked with joining the intergalactic peacekeeping group known as the Green Lantern Corps, we see actual excitement when Hal receives the power as well as trepidation with the gigantic responsibility that comes with the green Power Ring.Clearly, Peter Sarsgaard steals every scene where we see his character of Hector Hammond. Known for possessing a giant head in the comics, the added backstory of disappointing his politician father and his gradual descent into madness makes Hammond almost sympathetic. Though Blake Lively has been notable as just a TV star on Gossip Girl, her portrayal of Carol Ferris doesn’t come across as a one-dimensional damsel in distress but rather a multi-faceted go-getter trying to run her father’s company.
Using narration by Tomar-Re (voiced by Geoffrey Rush), the audience is quickly given the backstory of why the Guardians of the Universe founded the Green Lantern Corps in the first place and why they harness willpower in the form of those little green rings. The montage of Jordan being indoctrinated by Tomar-Re, Kilowog (voiced by Michael Clarke Duncan) and Sinestro (Mark Strong) is paced fast enough that one feels the exasperation Hal experiences when he fears that he doesn’t measure up to the Corps’ standards. It’s actually one of the more fun parts of Green Lantern.
In the Green Lantern mythos, the essential elements are as follows: dying alien passes Power Ring to irresponsible pilot, Jordan meets thousands of aliens on Oa, joins Green Lantern Corps and swears “The Oath”, Jordan has issues with the Guardians, pilot overcomes his fears to become the greatest Green Lantern of them all. Green Lantern, the movie, follows each of these elements save the last one. After all, there has to be some plots for the sequel(s). Tapping the Parallax entity as this first film’s main villain and tying his story to Abin Sur’s (Temuera Morrison) demise makes sense because it gives the film a universe-spanning baddie while also explaining the Power Rings’ problems with the color yellow.
A few years ago, a live action Green Lantern movie would not have been possible. Now that advances in special effects have made the hero’s ability to create shapes and constructs of any shape and size possible, anticipation for the Green Lantern movie rose to a fever pitch. Truth be told, most comic book fans were pushing for Reynolds to be cast as that other iconic DC hero, The Flash. There was trepidation that a “funny guy” like him could bring the gravitas and All-American hero vibe that permeates from Hal Jordan. I am quite pleased to report that he fills the green boots and Power Ring with aplomb and eagerly await Green Lantern’s next cosmic adventure.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Bossypants
Tina Fey's recently released autobiography, Bossypants, initially struck me as unusual in its timing since at just under 41 years, the Tina Fey story is nowhere close to being complete. Aside from a good chance to make some extra cash, which I cannot blame Ms. Fey for, this release seems symptomatic of our era where we have come to expect (and are willing to buy) a greater degree of familiarity to our favorite celebrities. We would like to know about the author's awkward stages and see the photo proof: the book has more than enough hilarious photos and haircuts of a younger Tina.
This book therefore is not one to read if one doesn't love Tina Fey already. Rather it is for the fan, admirer or cultural observer to take further pleasure in knowing that Tina really seems to be the real-life Liz Lemon (her 30 Rock creation). Tina is a cultural touchstone for those of us who value Mean Girls, 30 Rock or the first decade of Saturday Night Live (SNL) in the 21st century. I leave it up to the fan to discover his or her new Fey titbit. Mine would include her observation that her gay buddies from high school theatre camp seem to have come from catholic families where two of the four children were gay; it is also interesting that a great concern of hers when Sarah Palin guested on SNL, was that the governor not be booed by the potentially hostile New York audience.
In the book, Tina Fey speaks warmly of the people whom she worked with on her way to becoming the bossypants -- Amy Poehler, Lorne Michaels, Alec Baldwin, her Chicago improvisation group, the men of SNL, 30 Rock, her husband and the people she worked with at the YMCA. There is also much about what it is for her to work as a woman (and later mother) in what was and still is the male-dominated world of comedy writing. Regardless of what she topic she is on however, she's almost always funny.
* * *
Some of us will be travelling to the beach this summer. This might be the ideal read in between naps under the shade.
This book therefore is not one to read if one doesn't love Tina Fey already. Rather it is for the fan, admirer or cultural observer to take further pleasure in knowing that Tina really seems to be the real-life Liz Lemon (her 30 Rock creation). Tina is a cultural touchstone for those of us who value Mean Girls, 30 Rock or the first decade of Saturday Night Live (SNL) in the 21st century. I leave it up to the fan to discover his or her new Fey titbit. Mine would include her observation that her gay buddies from high school theatre camp seem to have come from catholic families where two of the four children were gay; it is also interesting that a great concern of hers when Sarah Palin guested on SNL, was that the governor not be booed by the potentially hostile New York audience.
In the book, Tina Fey speaks warmly of the people whom she worked with on her way to becoming the bossypants -- Amy Poehler, Lorne Michaels, Alec Baldwin, her Chicago improvisation group, the men of SNL, 30 Rock, her husband and the people she worked with at the YMCA. There is also much about what it is for her to work as a woman (and later mother) in what was and still is the male-dominated world of comedy writing. Regardless of what she topic she is on however, she's almost always funny.
* * *
Some of us will be travelling to the beach this summer. This might be the ideal read in between naps under the shade.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Certified Copy
If you haven't seen the movie, please be warned that mild spoilers are present in this review.
Copie Conforme / Certified Copy (Juliet Binoche, William Shimmell, Abbas Kiarostami)
Reviewed by Vinny
At the beginning of Copie Conforme, English author James Miller (William Shimmell) gives a lecture about authenticity in art, and suggests that imitations increase the value of the original work because they are manifestations of the desire to own the genuine. In that sense, copies reproduce their own value for as they add to the worth of the piece they refer to, they become more valuable themselves. This cyclical reproduction of value and meaning is something that James replicates himself in his relationship with an unnamed French woman (Juliet Binochet). Did they really just meet in the lecture hall for the first time? Or have they been married for fifteen years? Kiarostami does not tell us which relationship is real and which is the copy, but it does not matter which his which. Copie Conforme is more of a meditation on art, marital life and love than it is a mystery.
The movie plays out like Before Sunset, where the two characters are in constant dialogue as they explore the picturesque country landscape of Tuscany. At first, she appears to be a big fan of James, meeting him for the first time in a lecture he gives about his new book. She asks his Italian friend to arrange for the two of them to meet up. They do so and they get to know each other as she tours her around a quaint Tuscan town. When they enter a coffee shop, the waitress assumes them to be a married couple but she doesn't correct her. After that strange encounter, the dynamic between the two immediately changes: their quarrels become increasingly both intimate and hostile at the same time, until they reveal that they are a married couple and that it was the first encounter that was made up. But this does not reassure the audience -- their author-fan relationship was so believable that it is also possible that it is their married personas that they fabricated.
This movie is a success mainly due to the superb acting of Juliet Binoche, who won the Best Actress award in the last Cannes festival for this film. Hers is the stronger perfomance compared to Shimmell, with the nuances of her subtle expressions and the way she balances her character's warmth with her impulsive temperament bringing an emotional depth to their relationship. She was a chameleon in this movie - transforming from a wide-eyed, adoring stranger to a discontent, estranged wife.
It was not clear why the two characters engaged in a role-playing game, but the most plausible reason I could find is that it was her idea to do this in order to rekindle a marriage that is falling apart. The preponderance of brides and grooms peppered throught their journey seems to point to this as well; the contrast between the excitement of these newly-wed couples and the blandness of their own marriage was palpable throughout the film. With that interpretation, the movie then sheds light on the temporality and fragility of romance. But that is only one interpretation out of many. It is also possible that there is nothing underlying their affair. Maybe Kiarostomi is playing with us and our fixation on finding meaning. Like Miller's view on copies, maybe there is a disconnect between the reality of the movie and meanings we infuse upon it. This is an epitome of a postmodern romantic movie, where the meaning of the "romantic" relationship is arbitrary or even non-existent.
This movie is hard to explain, but is extremely well-acted and beautifully directed. At times the emotional tension between the two characters become painful to watch, and it doesn't answer the questions it raises, but there is a satisfaction in watching a movie done well. This is certainly one of those films.
Rating: 4/5
Copie Conforme / Certified Copy (Juliet Binoche, William Shimmell, Abbas Kiarostami)
Reviewed by Vinny
At the beginning of Copie Conforme, English author James Miller (William Shimmell) gives a lecture about authenticity in art, and suggests that imitations increase the value of the original work because they are manifestations of the desire to own the genuine. In that sense, copies reproduce their own value for as they add to the worth of the piece they refer to, they become more valuable themselves. This cyclical reproduction of value and meaning is something that James replicates himself in his relationship with an unnamed French woman (Juliet Binochet). Did they really just meet in the lecture hall for the first time? Or have they been married for fifteen years? Kiarostami does not tell us which relationship is real and which is the copy, but it does not matter which his which. Copie Conforme is more of a meditation on art, marital life and love than it is a mystery.
The movie plays out like Before Sunset, where the two characters are in constant dialogue as they explore the picturesque country landscape of Tuscany. At first, she appears to be a big fan of James, meeting him for the first time in a lecture he gives about his new book. She asks his Italian friend to arrange for the two of them to meet up. They do so and they get to know each other as she tours her around a quaint Tuscan town. When they enter a coffee shop, the waitress assumes them to be a married couple but she doesn't correct her. After that strange encounter, the dynamic between the two immediately changes: their quarrels become increasingly both intimate and hostile at the same time, until they reveal that they are a married couple and that it was the first encounter that was made up. But this does not reassure the audience -- their author-fan relationship was so believable that it is also possible that it is their married personas that they fabricated.
This movie is a success mainly due to the superb acting of Juliet Binoche, who won the Best Actress award in the last Cannes festival for this film. Hers is the stronger perfomance compared to Shimmell, with the nuances of her subtle expressions and the way she balances her character's warmth with her impulsive temperament bringing an emotional depth to their relationship. She was a chameleon in this movie - transforming from a wide-eyed, adoring stranger to a discontent, estranged wife.
It was not clear why the two characters engaged in a role-playing game, but the most plausible reason I could find is that it was her idea to do this in order to rekindle a marriage that is falling apart. The preponderance of brides and grooms peppered throught their journey seems to point to this as well; the contrast between the excitement of these newly-wed couples and the blandness of their own marriage was palpable throughout the film. With that interpretation, the movie then sheds light on the temporality and fragility of romance. But that is only one interpretation out of many. It is also possible that there is nothing underlying their affair. Maybe Kiarostomi is playing with us and our fixation on finding meaning. Like Miller's view on copies, maybe there is a disconnect between the reality of the movie and meanings we infuse upon it. This is an epitome of a postmodern romantic movie, where the meaning of the "romantic" relationship is arbitrary or even non-existent.
This movie is hard to explain, but is extremely well-acted and beautifully directed. At times the emotional tension between the two characters become painful to watch, and it doesn't answer the questions it raises, but there is a satisfaction in watching a movie done well. This is certainly one of those films.
Rating: 4/5
Monday, March 14, 2011
Rango
If you haven't seen the movie, please be warned that mild spoilers are present in this review. This movie will also be reviewed in the eighth episode of the podcast.
Rango (Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, dir: Gore Verbinski)
Reviewed by Vinny
Rango is a wildly entertaining movie that reminds us once again that great animated films can come outside of Pixar. It is a visually stunning tale of gun-slinging heroes and vile outlaws as its satirical tone and witty dialogue sends up the Western genre. But on an even deeper level, Rango infuses usual slapstick fare with very existential themes such as identity and one's purpose in life. Children will certainly enjoy the physical comedy of Rango, but so will more mature moviegoers who will appreciate the pop culture references the film occasionaly drops.
The plot revolves around a chameleon named Rango (voiced by Johnny Depp) who has lived in a terrarium all his life until he accidentally gets stranded in the middle of a desert town facing a water shortage. Along with a belle he meets named Beans (Isla Fisher) and a motley crew of gun-toting villagers, he helps the town uncover the mystery behind the decreasing water supply and discovers an even bigger conspiracy than he had expected.
The movie borrows heavily from character and plot tropes from classic spaghetti Westerns, and thus the movie can be predictable at times. These are characters we already know -- the silent and brooding native American, the feisty and trigger-happy bearded cowboy and the crusty and devious old-timer, to name a few -- and it would have been better if the movie embellished the supporting cast with a bit more personality to make them truly memorable. But despite this, the movie still manages to give the ensemble of characters a delightful and fun dynamic as they stumble their way through the course of their investigation.
This is not your usual cheerful, family friendly animated movie, though. There are scenes when Gore Verbinski and Roger Deakins seem to channel David Lynch in dark and surreal dream sequences as Rango goes through an existential crisis. There are risque jokes and double entendres. In fact, the plot is an homage to Chinatown, which is a dark movie in and of itself. But in its attempt to balance the bawdy humour with a bit of philosophical profundity, there are some parts where the movie seems disjointed and incoherent. For example, the oddest moment is when Rango encounters the "Spirit of the West" (Timothy Olyphant), a cowboy dressed up in an Eastwood-esque poncho who illuminates his purpose in the greater scheme of things after Rango is exposed as a fraud and subsequently banished from the town. Not only did this human character seem out of place in a cast of anthromorphic animals, but the sense of grandiosity and excitement that this climactic scene wants the audience to feel is eclipsed by confusion and bewilderment over what the specific purpose of this character really is.
On a final note, this is a beautifully drawn movie and Johnny Depp successfully transfers his personal quirk and charm to his character. While the movie does not push the boundaries of cinematic achievement or storytelling, it does a wonderful job at reminding us why we love Westerns and animated movies. Recommended.
Rating: 3.5/5
Rango (Johnny Depp, Isla Fisher, dir: Gore Verbinski)
Reviewed by Vinny
Rango is a wildly entertaining movie that reminds us once again that great animated films can come outside of Pixar. It is a visually stunning tale of gun-slinging heroes and vile outlaws as its satirical tone and witty dialogue sends up the Western genre. But on an even deeper level, Rango infuses usual slapstick fare with very existential themes such as identity and one's purpose in life. Children will certainly enjoy the physical comedy of Rango, but so will more mature moviegoers who will appreciate the pop culture references the film occasionaly drops.
The plot revolves around a chameleon named Rango (voiced by Johnny Depp) who has lived in a terrarium all his life until he accidentally gets stranded in the middle of a desert town facing a water shortage. Along with a belle he meets named Beans (Isla Fisher) and a motley crew of gun-toting villagers, he helps the town uncover the mystery behind the decreasing water supply and discovers an even bigger conspiracy than he had expected.
The movie borrows heavily from character and plot tropes from classic spaghetti Westerns, and thus the movie can be predictable at times. These are characters we already know -- the silent and brooding native American, the feisty and trigger-happy bearded cowboy and the crusty and devious old-timer, to name a few -- and it would have been better if the movie embellished the supporting cast with a bit more personality to make them truly memorable. But despite this, the movie still manages to give the ensemble of characters a delightful and fun dynamic as they stumble their way through the course of their investigation.
This is not your usual cheerful, family friendly animated movie, though. There are scenes when Gore Verbinski and Roger Deakins seem to channel David Lynch in dark and surreal dream sequences as Rango goes through an existential crisis. There are risque jokes and double entendres. In fact, the plot is an homage to Chinatown, which is a dark movie in and of itself. But in its attempt to balance the bawdy humour with a bit of philosophical profundity, there are some parts where the movie seems disjointed and incoherent. For example, the oddest moment is when Rango encounters the "Spirit of the West" (Timothy Olyphant), a cowboy dressed up in an Eastwood-esque poncho who illuminates his purpose in the greater scheme of things after Rango is exposed as a fraud and subsequently banished from the town. Not only did this human character seem out of place in a cast of anthromorphic animals, but the sense of grandiosity and excitement that this climactic scene wants the audience to feel is eclipsed by confusion and bewilderment over what the specific purpose of this character really is.
On a final note, this is a beautifully drawn movie and Johnny Depp successfully transfers his personal quirk and charm to his character. While the movie does not push the boundaries of cinematic achievement or storytelling, it does a wonderful job at reminding us why we love Westerns and animated movies. Recommended.
Rating: 3.5/5
Friday, March 11, 2011
Vinny's weekly Survivor recap -- Episode 4
The unthinkable just happened in the last episode of Survivor. Russell Hantz, quite possibly the biggest villain in Survivor history, was kicked out of the game. When he cried -- no, bawled -- after losing to Matt in the redemption island duel, a part of me felt sorry for the guy. Underneath the layers of underarm rash and pure evil was a human being who just loved the game too much. So as we bid farewell to one of the more interesting players of the game, let's hope that this season won't be as boring as the last. Because really,I do not care about the cabal of blonde bimbos (yes, including the surfer guy) that hover around Rob 24/7, and if they coast their way to the finale, I would gouge my eyes out.
Ometepe's Sinking Ship. Rob has to stop for a while and think about his strategy. The sad fact is, his tribe is the weaker tribe and is getting decimated in challenges, and keeping the weak players won't help reverse that. Cristina is probably the strongest female player they have. And if you're voting out someone strong anyway, why not vote out someone who actually annoys the hell out of everyone and brings down the tribe's morale, i.e. Phillip? Cristina was not a threat because Rob had the hidden immunity idol and the numbers, so I think Rob's paranoia and grudge against Cristina got the better of him this episode.
As the other tribe get more protein in their systems and enjoy the other perks of winning rewards, their dominance will continue. I don't think that the merge will come after the next two tribal councils; it will come much later than that. So what needs to happen in order for someone from this tribe to have a higher chance of winning is if they even the numbers out a bit. Now, there is always a chance that even if a tribe enters the merge with fewer people, the dominant tribe can still crumble. An example of this is in Russell's original season (Survivor Samoa) where Galu entered the merge 8-4 but ended up getting voted off successively. But it's too a risky a gamble to assume that there will be someone in the dominant tribe that will flip over. The best assumption would be to assume a worst-case scenario, i.e. that Zapatera enters the merge united, and try to prevent that from happening. Ometepe better start winning challenges if they want a better shot at the million dollars.
Ralph's Stupidity. I don't think I have to spell out why Ralph was stupid in the last episode, but let me point them out anyway:
Ometepe's Sinking Ship. Rob has to stop for a while and think about his strategy. The sad fact is, his tribe is the weaker tribe and is getting decimated in challenges, and keeping the weak players won't help reverse that. Cristina is probably the strongest female player they have. And if you're voting out someone strong anyway, why not vote out someone who actually annoys the hell out of everyone and brings down the tribe's morale, i.e. Phillip? Cristina was not a threat because Rob had the hidden immunity idol and the numbers, so I think Rob's paranoia and grudge against Cristina got the better of him this episode.
As the other tribe get more protein in their systems and enjoy the other perks of winning rewards, their dominance will continue. I don't think that the merge will come after the next two tribal councils; it will come much later than that. So what needs to happen in order for someone from this tribe to have a higher chance of winning is if they even the numbers out a bit. Now, there is always a chance that even if a tribe enters the merge with fewer people, the dominant tribe can still crumble. An example of this is in Russell's original season (Survivor Samoa) where Galu entered the merge 8-4 but ended up getting voted off successively. But it's too a risky a gamble to assume that there will be someone in the dominant tribe that will flip over. The best assumption would be to assume a worst-case scenario, i.e. that Zapatera enters the merge united, and try to prevent that from happening. Ometepe better start winning challenges if they want a better shot at the million dollars.
Ralph's Stupidity. I don't think I have to spell out why Ralph was stupid in the last episode, but let me point them out anyway:
- Telling everyone in his six-person alliance that he had the hidden immunity idol, thus making him the first person everyone will think of voting out when that group needs to get someone out
- Provoking Russell when he didn't need to be provoked, thus prompting Russell to spill all of the tribe's secrets in his attempt to go down in a blaze of glory
Not only did he compromise his personal game, but it also compromised the game of his entire tribe. I see a lot of sneaky characters in his alliance such as Steve and David, so I wouldn't be surprised if they blindsided him. Generally, I am not a fan of using the hidden immunity idol for the entire tribe, or even your alliance if its a big one. It is best used for you and your close confidants because you'll never know when you'll find yourself on the chopping block. And you also want to avoid that big target on your back. Marty tried to do this last season, and I can still remember how Brenda mocked him in her confessional.
Sigh, I miss Brenda.
Sigh, I miss Brenda.
Which Alliance is Better? At this point in the season, I want to assess which alliance seems poised to dominate the rest of the game.
Rob, Grant, Natalie, Ashley, Andrea
This isn't a physically strong alliance, but they seem to be more united. The real risk here is when Matt returns from Redemption Island, teams up with Andrea and convinces someone to break away from Rob. It will be hard to blindside Rob since he has the hidden immunity idol, but there's a risk there as well if everyone will find out and will feel betrayed that Rob hid it from them all along. But I don't think anyone here really is a strategic player so they just might follow the pack until the end. I mean, that's why Rob chose them, right?
Ralph, Steve, Julie, Sarita, David, Mike
This looks like a very tenuous alliance to me and I can't wait until they have to turn against each other because they seem to be composed of strategists. David, Mike and Steve were the architects of the plan to get rid of Russell - from lying to him about who won in Redemption Island to throwing the immunity challenge. Julie toyed around with the idea of switching sides to get an upper hand in the game. I wouldn't be surprised if this alliance completely dissolves in the merge as each of them pursues a strategy to one-up the other.
Stephanie, Krista
I feel bad for Stephanie because I truly believe she's a good player. I really do. I am rooting for her to just create chaos and emerge from the rubble unscathed. She'll probably tag Krista along because she is an extra vote that she can manipulate, which is a pity because I think that Krista is a poor strategist, weak in challenges and a bad player in general.
Phillip
Ewan ko.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Urban Exchange 007
In this week's episode, we talk about:
(02:25) The 83rd Academy Awards
(15:37) For the first time ever, Urban Exchange Mystery Theater contest!
(18:07) Interview with JV Rufino about the iPad 2
(33:55) Charlie Sheen and the art of the public breakdown
(15:37) For the first time ever, Urban Exchange Mystery Theater contest!
(18:07) Interview with JV Rufino about the iPad 2
(33:55) Charlie Sheen and the art of the public breakdown
Saturday, March 5, 2011
The Adjustment Bureau: It Needs to be Adjusted
If you haven't seen the movie, please be warned that mild spoilers are present in this review.
The Adjustment Bureau ( Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, John Slattery, dir: George Nofli)
Reviewed by Vinny
After Christopher Nolan successfuly infused a sci-fi thriller with a solid romantic plot with Inception, it was only a matter of time until another genre-straddling movie followed in its footsteps. The latest film to do this is George Nofli's The Adjustment Bureau, which he adapted from Philip K. Dick's "The Adjustment Team". One of Dick's other works, "Do Android Dreams of Electric Sheep", was also famously adapted into one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever, Blade Runner. But while "Androids" lent itself well to a cinematic interpretation, this movie isn't as coherent or as logical as it should be.
This movie plays around with the conflict between divine predestination and free will. The titular organization is a physical representation of fate -- it is a shadowy group of men (played by John Slattery, Anthony Mackie and Terence Stamp) with supernatural powers in noir-ish attire that are tasked to influence human activity in order for "the plan", i.e., the predestined narrative of our existence, to push through. This plan is written by "The Chairman" (read: the god of your choice), and whenever someone deviates from it, they are called in to make "adjustments".
Underlying the events of this movie is a romantic story. The plot revolves around Matt Damon's character named David Norris, a young politician looking to get a senate seat as the representative of New York. When he loses the election, he meets a beautiful ballet dancer named Elise, played by Emily Blunt. After this encounter which ended in a kiss, they bump into each other once again in a city bus. It is this second encounter that violates the plan, and the Adjustment Bureau is called in and tells David to forget about Elise. But despite this warning, he pursues Elise and the rest of the movie plays like a cat-and-mouse game of David and Elise escaping from the clutches of the bureau.
This movie isn't really that introspective or profound in developing the broader philsophical tension between destiny and choice (unlikeBlade Runner), and it didn't have to. This movie is best enjoyed as a thriller and not as a contemplation on human freedom. But even if I forgave the shallow way it treated that age-old debate, the movie still had gaping holes that made it hard for me to buy the plot. For one thing, the parameters of the powers that the agents have aren't really well defined. They can freeze time, trigger car crashes and make an ex-boyfriend call you up, but why were they so powerless in stopping David from chasing Elise and hunting her ballet studio? If they were so desperate to stop more "ripple effects" from happening (it was also unclear what these "ripple effects" were and what their ramifications are), couldn't they have conjured up anything to prevent him?
Also, one question that wasn't answered was why the bureau was so invested in David and his career, and this aspect of the plot would have benefited from more exposition. The only explanation we got was that they needed David to become president, and if he gets together with Elise, then this would not happen. But why does he need to be the president? Were their intentions benign and did they only want what's best for him? Or was he part of an even bigger plan, that he was supposed to do something as president that only he could do? And if him being president was so important, why were their fates so malleable such that the chairman could re-write their destinies in the end? All these questions weren't answered and took away from my enjoyment of the film, because, well, the main storyline simply didn't make any sense.
Damon and Blunt delivered average performances, but we already know that they're capable of giving good performances so theirs here isn't anything revelatory. But for what it's worth, they had chemistry on-screen and this made me want to root for them to be together. Some aspects of their relationship were hard to believe (will the sparks still be the same even after three years of non-contact?), but were tolerable enough. I thought that the producers also made good use of New York, the primary setting of the movie. The well-made action sequences led Damon and Blunt across several iconic NY landmarks, which was a visual delight. But both the acting and the setting weren't able to salvage this movie from the shortcomings of the story. Sadly, The Adjustment Bureau needs to be adjusted.
Rating: 2.5/5
The Adjustment Bureau ( Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, John Slattery, dir: George Nofli)
Reviewed by Vinny
After Christopher Nolan successfuly infused a sci-fi thriller with a solid romantic plot with Inception, it was only a matter of time until another genre-straddling movie followed in its footsteps. The latest film to do this is George Nofli's The Adjustment Bureau, which he adapted from Philip K. Dick's "The Adjustment Team". One of Dick's other works, "Do Android Dreams of Electric Sheep", was also famously adapted into one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever, Blade Runner. But while "Androids" lent itself well to a cinematic interpretation, this movie isn't as coherent or as logical as it should be.
This movie plays around with the conflict between divine predestination and free will. The titular organization is a physical representation of fate -- it is a shadowy group of men (played by John Slattery, Anthony Mackie and Terence Stamp) with supernatural powers in noir-ish attire that are tasked to influence human activity in order for "the plan", i.e., the predestined narrative of our existence, to push through. This plan is written by "The Chairman" (read: the god of your choice), and whenever someone deviates from it, they are called in to make "adjustments".
Underlying the events of this movie is a romantic story. The plot revolves around Matt Damon's character named David Norris, a young politician looking to get a senate seat as the representative of New York. When he loses the election, he meets a beautiful ballet dancer named Elise, played by Emily Blunt. After this encounter which ended in a kiss, they bump into each other once again in a city bus. It is this second encounter that violates the plan, and the Adjustment Bureau is called in and tells David to forget about Elise. But despite this warning, he pursues Elise and the rest of the movie plays like a cat-and-mouse game of David and Elise escaping from the clutches of the bureau.
This movie isn't really that introspective or profound in developing the broader philsophical tension between destiny and choice (unlikeBlade Runner), and it didn't have to. This movie is best enjoyed as a thriller and not as a contemplation on human freedom. But even if I forgave the shallow way it treated that age-old debate, the movie still had gaping holes that made it hard for me to buy the plot. For one thing, the parameters of the powers that the agents have aren't really well defined. They can freeze time, trigger car crashes and make an ex-boyfriend call you up, but why were they so powerless in stopping David from chasing Elise and hunting her ballet studio? If they were so desperate to stop more "ripple effects" from happening (it was also unclear what these "ripple effects" were and what their ramifications are), couldn't they have conjured up anything to prevent him?
Also, one question that wasn't answered was why the bureau was so invested in David and his career, and this aspect of the plot would have benefited from more exposition. The only explanation we got was that they needed David to become president, and if he gets together with Elise, then this would not happen. But why does he need to be the president? Were their intentions benign and did they only want what's best for him? Or was he part of an even bigger plan, that he was supposed to do something as president that only he could do? And if him being president was so important, why were their fates so malleable such that the chairman could re-write their destinies in the end? All these questions weren't answered and took away from my enjoyment of the film, because, well, the main storyline simply didn't make any sense.
Damon and Blunt delivered average performances, but we already know that they're capable of giving good performances so theirs here isn't anything revelatory. But for what it's worth, they had chemistry on-screen and this made me want to root for them to be together. Some aspects of their relationship were hard to believe (will the sparks still be the same even after three years of non-contact?), but were tolerable enough. I thought that the producers also made good use of New York, the primary setting of the movie. The well-made action sequences led Damon and Blunt across several iconic NY landmarks, which was a visual delight. But both the acting and the setting weren't able to salvage this movie from the shortcomings of the story. Sadly, The Adjustment Bureau needs to be adjusted.
Rating: 2.5/5
Friday, March 4, 2011
Vinny's weekly Survivor recap -- Episode 3
It's the third episode and Survivor continues to deliver this season. Players are playing the game smarter, and people are becoming more and more strategic earlier. This week, some excellent plotting has led to the ouster of Russell Hantz, which hitherto had never been voted out of the game. Of course, this season has a device that will allow him to get back in the game, but I want to bask in the fact that Russell, aka Mr. Underarm Funk, was outwitted by his tribemates. Hallelujah.
Getting rid of the cancer. This week, Russell's tribe decided to throw the challenge just to get him out. They were willing to sacrifice a tarp - perhaps the most sought after item in Survivor after fire and food - to "take out the cancer". Now I am not a fan of throwing challenges because immunity is immunity is immunity - it just doesn't make sense to want to go to tribal council and be potentially voted out. This is Survivor, where blindsides happen all the time and no one is really safe no matter how secure they feel. Moreover, the material comforts that come with chairs, pillows and the tarp shouldn't be undervalued - last season, two people quit because of horrible living conditions. From a strategic standpoint, I think that Ometepe losing would have been a greater benefit to Zapatera - not only would they be bereft of the reward, but the constant losing and the psychological cost of having to vote someone out would slowly erode their morale and their game, making them easy pickings come merge time.
Of course I'm not in the game and maybe Russell was that unbearable. And maybe having a divided tribe is a bigger problem to them. But chances are, they'll lose at some point down the road. And even if a twist happens, e.g. a tribe switch, I don't think it'd be hard to gun for Russell given his history. All the arguments that the majority alliance raised on why Russell should've gone will still apply in the future. So was it an urgent need to get rid of Russell? I don't think so. But given that they already lost the challenge and were supposed to vote someone out, Russell was the right choice.
Stephanie. Russell has found a good ally in Stephanie. First, the idea of making a fake immunity idol was her idea, which was a good attempt to save their sinking ship despite the unoriginality. I mean, it forced the six-some to split their votes, making it a bit easier to derail their plans because they now only needed to switch one vote. Second, I was also impressed by the way she tried to get Julie on their side. Granted, both plans failed, but it shows that she has the brains to make the best out of any situation. She more than makes up for the heap of blonde nothingness that is Krista. I hope she makes it to the merge and allies with Christina. That's a pair that I would root for.
Redemption Island. The duel between Francesca and Matt was entertaining to watch, mostly because it was a nail-biter. Now that we know how it actually works, I personally think that this twist benefits under-the-radar players even more. People who are vocal and campaign hard for someone to get booted out will be the first targets of the returning castaways, so sadly it makes it easier for boring people to coast through. Between Matt and Russell though, I predict a Russell win. Oh well.
Another thing I found interesting was Andrea's brief shining moment where she displayed some strategic acumen when she told Jeff that she didn't vote for either Matt and Francesca. Because of the twist, it might pay off to build a relationship with someone you know will get voted out, and Andrea certainly tried to do that.
That's it for this week. And on a final note, Phillip = black Aaron Eckhart. Tell me you agree with me.
Getting rid of the cancer. This week, Russell's tribe decided to throw the challenge just to get him out. They were willing to sacrifice a tarp - perhaps the most sought after item in Survivor after fire and food - to "take out the cancer". Now I am not a fan of throwing challenges because immunity is immunity is immunity - it just doesn't make sense to want to go to tribal council and be potentially voted out. This is Survivor, where blindsides happen all the time and no one is really safe no matter how secure they feel. Moreover, the material comforts that come with chairs, pillows and the tarp shouldn't be undervalued - last season, two people quit because of horrible living conditions. From a strategic standpoint, I think that Ometepe losing would have been a greater benefit to Zapatera - not only would they be bereft of the reward, but the constant losing and the psychological cost of having to vote someone out would slowly erode their morale and their game, making them easy pickings come merge time.
Of course I'm not in the game and maybe Russell was that unbearable. And maybe having a divided tribe is a bigger problem to them. But chances are, they'll lose at some point down the road. And even if a twist happens, e.g. a tribe switch, I don't think it'd be hard to gun for Russell given his history. All the arguments that the majority alliance raised on why Russell should've gone will still apply in the future. So was it an urgent need to get rid of Russell? I don't think so. But given that they already lost the challenge and were supposed to vote someone out, Russell was the right choice.
Stephanie. Russell has found a good ally in Stephanie. First, the idea of making a fake immunity idol was her idea, which was a good attempt to save their sinking ship despite the unoriginality. I mean, it forced the six-some to split their votes, making it a bit easier to derail their plans because they now only needed to switch one vote. Second, I was also impressed by the way she tried to get Julie on their side. Granted, both plans failed, but it shows that she has the brains to make the best out of any situation. She more than makes up for the heap of blonde nothingness that is Krista. I hope she makes it to the merge and allies with Christina. That's a pair that I would root for.
Redemption Island. The duel between Francesca and Matt was entertaining to watch, mostly because it was a nail-biter. Now that we know how it actually works, I personally think that this twist benefits under-the-radar players even more. People who are vocal and campaign hard for someone to get booted out will be the first targets of the returning castaways, so sadly it makes it easier for boring people to coast through. Between Matt and Russell though, I predict a Russell win. Oh well.
Another thing I found interesting was Andrea's brief shining moment where she displayed some strategic acumen when she told Jeff that she didn't vote for either Matt and Francesca. Because of the twist, it might pay off to build a relationship with someone you know will get voted out, and Andrea certainly tried to do that.
That's it for this week. And on a final note, Phillip = black Aaron Eckhart. Tell me you agree with me.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Urban Exchange 006
In this week's episode, we talk about:
02:42 - Review of the movie "Unknown"
14:48 - Commentary on discourse surrounding EDSA's 25th anniversary
30:38 - Our Top 3 morning reading habits
