Wednesday, September 30, 2015

'Turbo Kid' Has the Appeal of an 80's Cult Classic



Turbo Kid is set in a post-apocalyptic world wherein civilization had fallen in the 80’s (as what I can infer from the lingering articles and items being scavenged and utilized by the people) and water is a scarce commodity.  The story focuses on a teenage orphan – simply credited as “The Kid” – who is obsessed on an old comic book superhero named “Turbo Rider” and who spends his days scavenging for stuff he can trade for water, comic books, or some other objects.

One day, the Kid meets a mysterious and ebulliently quirky girl named Apple who convinces him to let her tag along as he goes scavenging.  However, a henchman of the savage warlord Zeus kidnaps Apple, while the Kid barely escapes himself.  In his flight, he comes across an armor and weapon that are coincidentally similar with those of his hero, Turbo Rider.  He puts them on – thus, becoming “Turbo Kid” – and proceeds to go save Apple.

80’s and 90’s kids, who became familiar and fell in love with both the cheesiness and charm of 80’s pop culture, will have a blast with Turbo Kid.  It agreeably pays homage to the ridiculous but adored genre tropes and tones from that era.  It has the production value of a low-budget movie, but this aspect never became a point against it.  It has succeeded in tapping into nostalgic tastes, and its “B movie” quality actually enhances the appeal.

It’s also pretty hilarious.  The movie isn’t excessively over-the-top as Kung Fury, but it still has plenty of laughs.  Most of them emerged from gory sequences though.    

Furthermore, Turbo Kid and Apple emit a genuinely warm and congenial chemistry.  When the story gets too ridiculously violent or starts to flirt with clichés, it fortunately has this positive characteristic to fall back to.

Turbo Kid is not the post-apocalyptic masterpiece that Mad Max: Fury Road is.  But it does have the craftsmanship and appeal of a cult classic from the 80’s, and I found that that’s sufficient to have a great time with this film.  

Monday, September 28, 2015

'Tale of Tales' Is a Fine Reminder that Fairy Tales Haven't Always Been for Children



Tale of Tales, or Il racconto dei racconti in Italian, is a fantasy film composed of three interweaving stories based on “The Enchanted Doe” (La Cerva Fatata), “The Flea” (La Pulce), and “The Flayed Old Lady” (La Vecchia Scorticata), with creative liberties done, of course.  The source of these three tales is the Pentamerone, a collection of fairy tales – considered by scholars as the first of such – by 17th-century Neapolitan courtier Giambattista Basile.

Tale of Tales is a fairy tale in the traditional sense (not how Disney has revised it in the 20th century) – surreal and grim.  It’s not pleasant and fun at all.  But its dark, eccentric tone emits an alluring likability nonetheless.  The weirdness and grittiness, aided by lush production value and metaphorical depth, kept this film mesmerizing from start to finish of its 2-hour long run time.

Fairy tales haven’t always been for kids.  They are inherently unsettling.  I think this is so because fairy tales essentially have morals or philosophical insights in them, obscure these might be, and, at times, in order to deliver the message more emphatically, the macabre has to outweigh the beautiful.  Tale of Tales serves as a fine reminder and example.

Sunday, September 27, 2015

‘Heneral Luna’ Is Meant to Condition Filipinos to Vote for Duterte as President



LOL.  Yeah.  Sorry, for the horrible “bait-and-switch” title.  This post isn’t really an analysis of such preposterous thesis.  This is simply my review of the movie Heneral Luna.

To be honest, I wasn’t really compelled of watching Heneral Luna at first.  I was somewhat impressed of the trailer, but I wasn’t set yet of actually watching it.  It was a 50/50 thing.  But then, my Facebook newsfeed exploded with dynamic approvals and high recommendations for the movie.  This made me finally put Heneral Luna on my mental list for movies to watch.  Thankfully, albeit late, the local theater showed it, and I went to watch it as soon as I got the time.

Indeed, Heneral Luna deserves all the hype it receives.  In a Filipino movie industry that has been dominated by garbage, this movie is a much welcome gem.  It’s an overall good movie, and a highlight of my 2015 movie watching.  But I’m not going to eagerly shower it with my praises.  It’s not exactly the homerun that I was hoping it to be.

As far as being a biopic of a Filipino hero is concerned, I still think that the 1998 José Rizal epic film starring Cesar Montano has proven to have a more polished, purposeful, and interesting narrative than Heneral LunaHeneral Luna has plenty of great moments, and succeeds in portraying its titular character in an exciting light through a well-crafted tale.  I, however, have some problems with its pacing and inability to sustain an overall sense of enthrallment.  Make no mistake though, this movie started strong and has provided plenty of riveting moments.  However, I’m a bit of more prejudiced against Filipino movies, which, in general, suffer from extreme cheesiness and scarcity of cleverness.  Hence, I find it harder to forgive details of cheesiness – mild they may be – which easily distract me.  There are some elements in the story that I felt are cheesy and gratuitous, which derailed my enjoyment of the movie a bit.


My biggest disappointment on the movie is the lack of focus on Luna’s reputation as a brilliant military tactician.  This is a commander that is historically known to be capable of earning victories against Spanish and American forces with just a militia of conscripted farmers under his command.  His genius has been mentioned several times in the movie, but it isn’t thoroughly shown.  I’m sure that the movie would have been twice better if Luna’s genius military mind has been explored more.  I read in the past about cool stuff like the “Luna Defense Line” (a three-tiered defense line that gave the Americans plenty of trouble) and his fondness for assembling elite squads like the “Luna Sharpshooters” (snipers, basically) and the “Black Guard”, a 25-men guerrilla unit led by a lieutenant named Garcia (the movie’s Garcia could be this guy), and I wish that these things were featured and expounded in the movie.

Also, if you expect some awesome action sequences from this movie, you’ll be disappointed.  Yes, it doesn’t shy away from showing gruesome violence to portray realism.  But the battle scenes aren’t remarkable at all.

Nevertheless, the intent is to be more of a drama movie anyway, rather than an actual action film.  And with the drama, the movie hits empathically.  The terrific acting fuels the intensity of the drama and kept me invested, even when my problems with the pacing start becoming apparent.  Kudos most of all to John Arcilla, whose captivating performance effectively portrayed the different facets of General Luna’s personality, both his admirable traits and flaws.

I wasn’t expecting that this movie will have its share of humor, but it indeed has the right dosage of hilarity.  This movie has made me laughed aloud on several instances.  Some of the funny moments actually happen in a violent context, which is kind of morbid, but it’s so well-executed that laughing can’t be helped.

But the best thing about this movie is that it provokes reflection.  That is something rare of mainstream Filipino movies to do.  And I absolutely welcome it.  True, it actually has a pretty cynical message.  The political climate of the past is just as messed up as of that in the present.  Hence, it can be said that this movie is a reflection of our current rotten status as a nation.  We put personal interests, egos, and conveniences above the benefit of the motherland.  We have an inability of being completely one as a nation.  We are an undisciplined people.  And having a sense of nationalism for this country is simply wasted, because those in power will just screw you.  But, who knows, maybe by realizing these things, Filipinos would now accept that, as what General Luna posits in the movie, in order to change this country, what’s required is something radical.

(Seriously, with all the sympathy generated by the movie for Gen. Antonio Luna, it feels like that the movie is conditioning the Filipinos to subscribe to Luna’s stern methods and philosophy.  Hence, it feels this movie is a conspiracy sponsored by a “Duterte for President” movement.  LOL.)

So all in all, Heneral Luna is a well-acted, excellently-made, eye-opening, must-watch movie.  The Filipino film industry desperately needs more thoughtful movies like this.

I’m happy that this movie is making money, after its first week’s poor gross receipts (lots of props to social media word-of-mouth).  This kind of movie needs to be rewarded.  And, since everything is driven by money, this would encourage other Filipino filmmakers and producers to pursue making more insightful, more intelligent mainstream movies.  Also, by this, a sequel, about Gregorio Del Pilar (fact: this young general is my favorite among Filipino national heroes while growing up), is ensured.  Can’t wait!
(Keeping my fingers crossed that this is the start of the Filipino Cinema Renaissance!)

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Hey, 'Pixels' Isn't the Worst Movie of the Year After All



Considering the fact that Pixels was critically slammed when it came out earlier this year, I’ve no real interest of watching it.  But I recently found myself doing so for the first time – and, very likely, the last time, as well – and I found that, indeed, it’s simply another entry to Adam Sandler’s growing catalogue of tiresome, awful comedies.

The story is a mess of extremely dumb details.  There are attempts to be clever in its themes and jokes, but there’s not much effort behind them.  The characters are flat.  Worst of all, Pixels bastardizes an awesome premise (actually, this movie is an adaptation of an award-winning short film.  I haven’t seen it yet, but I’ll bet that it was better than this full-length adaptation).  An alien invasion by classic arcade games that have been brought to life is a silly but unique concept, and Pixels wastes it.  This movie thinks that it has properly utilized the nostalgic appeal of these games, but it’s apparent that it fails at it.  There’s no tinge of magnetism or impact that could be found.

However, the good thing I can say about this movie is that it’s not as godawful as I was expecting it to be.  In fact, there are some parts that I found to be actually – gasp! – fun and entertaining.  Here are a few likely reasons why I thought so:
  • Understanding that this movie is going to be bad before watching it probably allowed my subconscious to tremendously lower my expectations.  Lesser the expectations, lesser the disappointments.
  • The Fantastic Four reboot is significantly worse, and I get to watch that one first earlier this month.  Most bad films will relatively look like Citizen Kane with that atrocious movie as point of comparison.  With that around this year, Pixels is safe from becoming my pick for worst 2015 movie.
  • I have somewhat of a tolerance for bad Adam Sandler movies.  There are some critically panned Sandler movies that I personally think are good and underrated – e.g. Hotel Transylvania, The Longest Yard (love the “Mean Machine” team), and 50 First Dates – and there are a couple of bad ones that I think are likable and entertaining.

So, yeah, there’s no denying that Pixels is an objectively bad movie.  But I didn’t hate watching it.  I don’t think it’s as crappy and funless and unwatchable as many assessments of this movie articulated.  Simply, Pixels is tolerable but forgettable.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

'Humans' Is Intelligent and Gripping; Tackles A.I. Themes in an Asimovian Manner



Despite being a dumb show, I immediately grew to love Almost Human when it started its ran last 2013, primarily because the dynamic of the lead characters – a mystery-solving duo made up of a human and an android – reminded me of the main characters of Isaac Asimov’s Robot novels (I’m a big fan of the characters, the books, and the author).  Thus, I grieved when it was cancelled last year after only getting a mere 13-episode season.

Thank God for this year’s Humans.  It’s an ample replacement for Almost Human as my favorite ongoing AI-centric science fiction show.  It isn’t as fun and futuristic as Almost Human, but it’s certainly several times more thought-provoking and riveting.  Not only did this remind me of Isaac Asimov’s Robot stories, but the plot of Humans is like something Asimov himself would write if he’s alive now.  Humans has tackled Asimovian themes on artificial intelligence more intelligently and deeply than Almost Humans ever did – or any other on screen stories focusing on artificial intelligence for that matter.

Humans (or HUM∀NS, as it’s stylized in its opening sequence) is based on the acclaimed Swedish sci-fi drama Real Humans.  It is set in a world that technologically mirrors the present real-world we’re in, but life-like androids called Synths are as predominant as cars and appliances.  Though these Synths show advanced cognitive processes, they aren’t actually self-aware or conscious, but are merely functioning in a nigh-flawless manner within the parameters of their programmed roles.  However, because of their uncannily human appearance and perfectness in performing human tasks and imitating human reactions, Synths aren’t only beginning to replace human labor, but human relationships as well.


The focal point of the story is on a suburban family named the Hawkins.  Laura, the mother, is introduced as a workaholic lawyer who is constantly away from her family.  Struggling in keeping the house and the kids in order, the husband, Joe, buys a Synth to help in the house chores.  The Synth, who is christened “Anita”, is an immediate success in bringing domestic stability to the Hawkins household.

However, different reactions arise from Anita’s arrival.  The youngest daughter, Sophie, immediately grows deeply fond of her, even preferring her to do the routines that are originally reserved for her mother.  The son, Toby, develops a crush on her.  The eldest child, Matilda, is cynical of Synths and shifts between apathy and suspicion in her attitude to Anita.  And Laura, seeing how Anita has effortlessly installed herself in the family and gaining the affection of Sophie, is distrustful and bitter.

The narrative promptly reveals that Anita isn’t an ordinary Synth.  Her real name is Mia, and she’s one of four special Synths that have consciousness – meaning they can independently think, feel, and learn like human beings!  Mia, along with others of her kind, was stolen while inactive, and was reprogrammed and fenced.  And while Mia is serving the Hawkins as “Anita”, her “owner”, Leo (whose own humanity is also implied to be in doubt) is tirelessly looking for her, driven by the desire to bring his family – these special, conscious Synths – back together.

The plot brilliantly tackles the emotional and ethical issues arising from various scenarios of human-Synth interaction.  To bring these about, aside from what has been mentioned in the synopsis above, there are various other characters and plotlines involved.  And all of these eventually converge in the last third of episodes.  It’s a complex, fascinating series.

The editing and directing seem to be untidy sometimes, but the terrific writing didn’t suffer an iota.  Character arcs are beautiful; the drama engages with ease; heavy expositions are done through powerful dialogues that come out naturally from the flow of the story; and the sequences are suspenseful and purposeful, successfully avoiding being pretentious, predictable, and gratuitous.

The acting is commendable all-around, particularly those that played the Synths.  But the most enthralling of all is easily Gemma Chan as Anita/Mia.  She’s just perfect.

Humans is a must-watch for every professing science fiction fan.  It has everything that a first-rate science fiction tale should have – smart thrills, stimulating themes, and a consistently gripping narrative.  Humans is so good that I feel that it is resonating with the same kind of appeal that made me fall in love with Orphan Black last year (Orphan Black is still the Queen, though).

Humans is surely going to end up on my year-end top 10.

Tuesday, September 22, 2015

A Spaghetti Analogy on Finding Falsehood in a Discussion


As I grow older, whenever people are giving discussions – in seminars, classes, lectures, symposiums, talks, sermons, etc. – I really do my best to just politely listen and simply take the helpful and thoughtful things from it, and just ignore the opposite.  This wasn’t always the case.  When I was younger, I immediately express displeasure whenever a discussant provides details which I happen to know are shallow, flawed, or simply pure bullcrap.  I try to be less obnoxious these days.  If nothing evidently good can come out of snapping out a sharp remark about it, I try to bite my tongue as much as I can (if I fail, the offense is likely to be so unforgivable that I can’t help myself).

Still, I find it frustrating when discussants fail to put more thought on the topic and verify information more keenly.  As much as I want to separate the positive from the negative aspects, it’s a struggle for me to get past the fact that a discussant would pass an erroneous or bogus detail as something genuine in order to conveniently deliver a point.  Whether this is due to the discussant’s own ignorance and failure to be more scrutinizing or an attempt to fool/manipulate the listeners whom the discussant assumes are ignorant, both reasons are unacceptable.  Even if an actual bigger truth can come out of the discussion, I’m going to find the whole thing unrewarding or, worse, appalling.


Picture a plate of spaghetti.  Everything about it is edible and harmless except for a strand of spaghetti noodle, which happens to be poisonous.  The plate of spaghetti isn’t totally poisonous.  But that doesn’t matter anymore.  Having just one poisonous noodle strand in it has made it impossible to still eat the plate of spaghetti.

Such is my problem with finding a piece of falsehood in one’s discussion.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Being Awful and Stupid Makes 'Vacation' Funny



Vacation serves as the fifth theatrical installment (I mentioned “theatrical” because there’s also a TV movie spin-off) of the National Lampoon’s Vacation series as well as an attempt of a reboot.  The movie centers on a grown up Rusty Griswald (Ed Helms), son of the main protagonist of the original series, who decides to take his family on a road trip to Walley World just as what he had experienced with his parents and sister many years before (as seen in the first movie).  Unfortunately, instead of fun and quality bonding moments, misfortunes and misadventures are what they encounter along the way instead.

It is obvious that the intent is to replicate the charm and heart of the first movie, National Lampoon’s Vacation, which is a comedy classic.  But it’s done in the laziest manner possible – by basically copying the plotline of the original movie.  The result is a stupid movie with stupid characters, stupid narrative, and stupid jokes.

That said, it’s a funny movie.  Not hilarious, but at least funny.

It has some genuinely funny parts that warrant some slight laughs by themselves.  E.g. the rental car that the family used on this trip happens to be the most ridiculous rental car ever.  Unfortunately, most of the time, the humor is either dumb or cringe-worthy.

So what makes this movie funny then?  Well, just because it’s awful and stupid.  The movie per se might fall short in making one laugh, but it's possible to naturally laugh at this movie.  Its failure to be a funny comedy movie actually makes it funny.

Vacation isn’t the worst in the franchise, but it’s an objectively bad movie.  And yet, it made me laugh.  I may be laughing for the wrong reasons, but at least the experience of watching it didn’t turn out to be agonizingly dull.

Saturday, September 19, 2015

‘Mr. Robot’ Is the ‘Fight Club’ of TV Cyber-Thrillers



Elliot Alderson (played by Rami Malek) is a cybersecurity engineer by day, vigilante hacker by night.  He possesses an intelligent and analytical mind, as established by his brilliant hacking skills and effortless deciphering of people as if they’re made up of computer codes.  However, he also suffers from mental illnesses, particularly clinical depression and social anxiety disorder, and an addiction to morphine, causing an extent of impairment to his thought processes (for one, he spent the story talking to an imaginary friend, who’s represented by the show’s collective viewers).  One day, he is recruited by an enigmatic, crazy anarchist named “Mr. Robot” (played by Christian Slater) to join “fsociety”, his team of capable hackers whose goal is to bring down E Corp (derogatorily called by Elliot as “Evil Corp”), one of the world’s largest – and most corrupt – conglomerates.

That’s the synopsis of Mr. Robot.  By itself, judging from the details given above, it seems an uninteresting, clichéd premise.  That’s what I thought, too, at first.  But after I get to binge-watch the ten episodes of its debut season, I discovered that a synopsis simply doesn’t give justice to the actual depth that this show has.

The themes of Mr. Robot heavily remind me of the 1999 film Fight Club.  And I guess everyone who has seen both Fight Club and Mr. Robot will feel the same way as I.  But I mean that as a good thing.  Mr. Robot has the same level of engaging narrative and thought-provocation that Fight Club has, if not superior.

Mr. Robot is smart, investing, and well-written.  It has an anti-establishment, anarchic theme but I personally don’t think that the show is purely promoting or glorifying such message.  It simply provokes deeper thought upon the issues it handles through a cathartic, realistic, and relatable tale.  That is simply great storytelling.

The way that the story unfolds is an indication of this show’s great writing.  For example, there are some parts that initially don’t hold up narratively, but when the fact that Elliot’s mental problems and drug addiction are established earlier in the story is considered, it is understood that he’s being an unreliable narrator.  Elliot’s delusions and paranoia boosts how the narrative plays out and how the plot twists are built up.

The biggest plot twist is made predictable by foreshadowing (clue: again, Fight Club-esque), but I think that’s the intention all along.  Besides, all reveals are done in an organic, well-executed manner that their impact is not diminished at all.

I was also impressed by the seemingly accurate depiction of hackers’ processes and philosophies.  I bet this show has some Anonymous hackers consulting for it.  It’s one of the most appealing aspects of this show.

But the best thing about this show is the lead character, Elliot.  The show has some fascinating, messed-up characters, but Elliot easily stands out.  I haven’t made a list for fictional hackers yet, but when I do, he’s surely going to be it.  And it’s not just because of his hacking skills.  He’s a genuinely complex, layered, and interesting character.  Elliot is on his way in becoming one of TV’s most definitive anti-heroes.

Mr. Robot is definitely the most thought-provoking, most intriguing, and most suspenseful cyberthriller in years.  Next to Daredevil, it’s my favorite new TV series that came out this year.  There are some things that I’m not satisfied with, like how I wish Elliot’s vigilantism was explored more (would love to see him take down more criminals and d-bags), but they’re minimal.  All in all, I love this show.

The first season’s incredible finale wraps up nicely but nonetheless ends with a lot of questions left in the air.  I’m excitedly looking forward to see what season two will reveal and where the story is going to next.

Monday, September 14, 2015

I'm Not Really Excited About 'Pokémon Go'



The trailer for Pokémon Go – a new augmented reality (AR) game for smartphones (both Android and iPhone) which would require players to travel around real-world locations in order to trade, capture, and battle Pokemon – has been around for several days already, and everyone is losing their minds about it.  It’s “old news” but I would still want to offer some thoughts about it.

Regardless of my objective belief that Digimon is better than Pokémon – as far as the anime properties are concerned – it is a fact that, in the past, I experienced how deeply immersive playing Pokemon games is (especially back in my tween/early teens).  So I know Pokémon Go’s potential of becoming a mobile game that everyone will get addicted to – whether via fad or fandom.        

My ultimate gaming experience fantasy isn’t something confide in virtual reality (that’s so 80’s-90’s).   It should have an interface that can interact in the real world.  I don’t have a clear concept of it in my mind, but the closest illustration of such game is that of “Greed Island” in Hunter X Hunter – an RPG existing in a real-world setting.  Thus, I really find the Pokémon Go trailer awesome.  It’s a glimpse of what my fantasy gaming experience could look like.

That said, my personal feelings for Pokémon Go, as of now, is nothing more than intrigue.  I’m not really too excited about it.


Firstly, there are no concrete information yet on how the actual gameplay will look like.   Yes, the trailer looks cool and exciting, but I doubt that the gameplay is going to be anything like it.  If it’s virtually anything like it – holograms of Pokémon, Poké Balls, and others popping out – then it’s definitely going to revolutionize gaming as we know it and, thus, worth going crazy about.  But that’s extremely unlikely, of course.

Secondly, if the gameplay involves having to hold up your camera phone – so that the game animation can meld with the real-world environment – for extended periods of time, won’t that be too tiring for the arm?

Thirdly, consider the fact that Pokémon lives in different habitats, regions, and terrains, and its implications on the game (as well as what the game trailer has implied).  Does it mean I have to travel to an exotic or dangerous location in order to capture a particular rare Pokémon?  Like, will I have to go to the Arctic in order to get a glimpse of Articuno?  Will I have to go to a cemetery or an abandoned mansion in order to encounter a ghost-type Pokémon?  Will I have to go near the mouth of Mayon Volcano in order to get a Magmar?  Will Manila be exclusively filled with Muk and Grimer?

Pokémon Go’s premise is an ambitiously unique one.  However, I’m not keen of having a game that would require me to go to a specific place for the sake of just experiencing an aspect of the game that can only be possible in that place.  Seems like a waste of time and energy.

Furthermore, picture this as well: people, especially kids, getting into danger or trouble – e.g. trespassing, accidents, getting lost, etc. – because of the location requirements of this game.  Yikes!

Lastly, this game probably won’t be free.  If so, then I won’t ever get to play it.  I don’t buy – or use for that matter – apps that aren’t free.  (Can’t afford them… or too lazy to partake in a digital transaction for them.  I still haven’t encountered an app that is worth the money and hassle.)

Pokémon Go could turn out to be the most groundbreaking game in the 21st century.  That would be a pleasant shock, if ever.  But, based on all available (or lack of) data, I tend to think that it’s more probable that the game won’t really live up to the hype created by the trailer.

We have to wait for 2016 to know for real.

For now, I’m more than satisfied of having this emulator app that enables me to play Fire Red and other Pokémon classics on my tab.  

Saturday, September 12, 2015

'Self/Less' Attempts to Be Provocative, Has to Settle with Being Passable



Self/less is a psychological science fiction thriller about a rich old man dying of cancer named Damien Hale (Ben Kingsley) who undergoes a radical medical procedure called “shedding”, in which his consciousness is transferred into a younger, healthier body (Ryan Reynolds).  After a successful “shedding”, Hale enjoys a rejuvenated life under a new identity.  However, to his horror, he later discovers that the body he’s transferred into isn’t an artificially grown one, as he’s led to believe, but used to belong to a family man named Mark Bitwell.

The “body swapping” premise of this movie heavily reminded me of Advantageous and Superior Spider-Man – both of which utilized the concept in much more fascinating stories – so I find this movie lacking originality.  It makes a decent attempt to be smart and thrilling, I’ll give it that, but it just doesn’t quite hit the mark.  It’s has its brief moments of intrigues and mildly provokes thought, but it ultimately fails to really capture my interest and approval.

Self/less has some entertainment value, but it’s nothing special.  It’s predictable, unremarkable, and forgettable.  It’s the kind of movie that can play in the background while you are doing some chore, and yet, even without the merit of your undivided attention, you still get to understand what’s it all about.

There's Nothing Fantastic About the 'Fantastic Four' Reboot



The new Fantastic Four reboot – or, as it logo goes, Fant4stic (I will be referring to the movie as such, since using “Fantastic Four” on it is disrespectful to the comics) – has been around for a while now, and it’s being universally considered as a big pile of steaming crap.  So I initially intended to skip watching this movie.  But I realized that I have to see for myself how big of a disaster this movie is.  So I did.

Well, it’s not the worst comic book movie ever made (2004’s Catwoman will probably hold that title forever). 
Annnnnd that’s the only good thing I can say about the movie.

During the months leading to Fant4stic’s release, a local theater used the trailer of the old 2005 Fantastic Four movie (I even took a video of it) to promote the reboot.  The one in charge of it was either ignorant of the difference or was playing a joke.  It was hilarious.  However, if ever that theater had actually ripped-off its customers by showing the 2005 Fantastic Four movie instead of Fant4stic, that would still actually be a better movie watching experience.  That’s how bad Fant4stic is.

Here are the integral elements needed to make a perfect Fantastic Four movie:
  • Fun! Fun! Fun!
  • Family dynamic.
  • Quirky science fiction adventures.
  • Johnny Storm and Ben Grimm are smart-ass prankers who are constantly ribbing at each other.
  • Reed Richards Susan Storm.
  • Dr. Doom is a complex, badass villain.   
Fant4stic has none of that.  Faulty the original Fantastic Four movies might have been, but at least they made an effort to capture the essence of FF.  That’s why I find some enjoyment in watching those bad movies.

I won’t be giving a synopsis.  It’s not worth it.  Let’s just say that Fant4stic is a shallow, unexciting, waste-of-time origin story.

Virtually everything about the movie is notably godawful.  Instead of a legitimate blockbuster movie of the Fantastic Four, it looks more of an Asylum rip-off of said movie.  The plot is littered with incoherence and stupidity.  The narrative is messy and boring.  The dialogue is dreadful to the letter.  The characters are bastardizations of their comic book counterparts.  The visual effects look appallingly cheap.  The pacing is tiresome.  And the quality of direction is that as if director Josh Trank was stoned while doing his job… uh, wait, that’s exactly what was rumored to had happened on set.

The acting is also noticeably horrendous, which is a real shock since the cast is made up of promising young actors.  They have no chemistry with each other, and their performances indicate that their hearts weren’t on the roles they were playing.

So it’s established that Fant4stic is an awful movie, but can we at least have fun and laugh at how bad it is?  Sadly, no.  We can’t even have the pleasure of making fun of how bad it is.  I originally intended to title this review as “Fantastic Four reboot is a Fantastic Failure” but decided not to since it could be misinterpreted as something “so bad that it’s good.”  It’s not.   It just takes itself too seriously and it’s so lifelessly bland.  It is devoid of thrills, emotion, fun, and humor – even accidental humor.  It’s as if Dementors sucked it dry.  And whenever it pretends to have excitement, depth, thoughtfulness, and heart when, in fact, it has essentially none, I was more infuriated by the pretentiousness rather than be amused of the failures.

Fant4stic simply has no noteworthy redeeming quality.  Terrible movie X-Men Origins: Wolverine might be, there were at least moments that I was like, “This is a trainwreck of a movie, but I like that part.”  I have no such moments with Fant4stic.

The existence of this movie blasphemes the Fantastic Four, Marvel Comics, comic books, comic book movies, films, and nerd culture in general.  It doesn’t even have a cameo of Stan Lee!  What a sacrilege!  (Just kidding.  It’s my lame attempt of an over-the-top nerd rage.)

So, yeah, Fant4stic is an atrocity.  Watching it left a bad taste in my mouth that I just have to rewatch the goofy 2005 Fantastic Four movie to wash it away.

We desperately need Fox to lose its Fantastic Four license.  The only chance we’ll be able to see a great adaptation that the Fantastic Four is deserving of is if the property reverts back to Marvel.

Friday, September 11, 2015

Despite Its Flaws, 'Healer' Is a Fun and Memorable Action Romance



Healer is a 20-episode Korean TV series that ran from December 2014 to February 2015, but I’ve just finished binge-watching it.  The TV series focuses on a young “night courier” – a sort of thief/retrieval specialist for hire – code named “Healer.”

Healer, whose real name is Seo Jung-hoo (played by Ji Chang-wook), is highly proficient in martial arts, acrobatics, and field craft.  He is the best in the business, and is highly sought by clientele.  Being an introvert and due to the nature of his occupation, Healer maintains a secluded, lonely existence – only coming out of his hideaway when there’s a job to do.  His ultimate dream is to buy his own private island where he can live alone.

But everything changes when a client, the famous reporter Kim Moon-ho (Yoo Ji-tae), commissions him to spy on Chae Young-shin (Park Min-young), a bubbly and willful entertainment website reporter who dreams of becoming a legendary journalist.  This leads to Healer going undercover in Young-shin’s workplace and adopting the alias “Park Bong-soo.”  Consequently, by being constantly in the presence of Young-shin’s sunny personality, Healer’s icy personality begins to melt and he eventually falls for her – radically changing his life goals and worldview.

As the story progresses, Healer struggles to juggle his alter egos and his feelings, while at the same time, work with Young-shin and Moon-ho in unraveling the secrets of their past and bringing down a shadowy conspiracy of powerful people.

Healer isn’t perfect, but I had a good time binge-watching it.  Despite its flaws and cringe-worthy writing in some parts, Healer has a decent amount of smarts and its narrative is generally immersive.  And though it’s not as well-plotted or intriguing as Kill Me, Heal Me, there are still a lot of moments wherein I was very impressed by the storytelling.  Furthermore, Healer is the first Koreanovela that I’ve seen wherein fight scenes are integral to the story.  They aren’t spectacular, but they’re solidly choreographed and definitely contributed more appeal to the show.

The characters are fun and amiable in general – Healer, particularly, is a cool and unforgettable “spook” character.  But there are times when I found them frustrating and inconsistent.  I was annoyed whenever a character makes a dumb decision when he or she has just made a smart one a few scenes back.

It’s the same with the editing, writing, and direction – they aren’t always good.  There are some scenes and plot sequences that I find unnecessary, pretentious, dumb, or sloppily executed.  But, thankfully, most of the time, the story does flow in a smart, organic manner, which I find extremely satisfying and worth appreciating.

It’s also with Healer when Koreanovela clichés finally made me groan.  For example, in all the Koreanovelas that I’ve watched so far, all of them require an absurd amount of “small world coincidences” to make the plot and drama work.  I’ve learned to accept and expect this from Koreanovelas, as long as they’re enjoyable enough, which Healer is, but I’m starting to get tired of excusing this cliché.  Aside from this, I’ve also noticed these two clichés in all five Koreanovelas I’ve seen: 1.) the male and female leads are acquainted during their childhood or teens; and 2.) there’s a sequence wherein the female lead gets drunk, creating a comedic moment.  Maybe it has come to the point wherein I’ve already seen enough Koreanovelas to make me sensitive of these clichés.  And, with Healer, my tolerance for them is starting to wane.  I’m still forgiving at this point, but I’m not sure I’ll still be for the next Koreanovela.

Healer’s strongest aspect is the romance.  I really like the “love triangle” approach.  And, no, it’s not among Healer, Young-shin, and Moon-ho.  Any indications in the early episodes that it’s going there are mere red herrings.  The real love triangle is made up of Healer, Young-shin, and Healer’s undercover persona, Park Bong-soo.  The whole thing is comparable to the appealing dynamic of the romance between Clark Kent/Superman and Lois Lane.  There is genuine chemistry and magnetism, and you can’t help but root for the couple.    

Lastly, another great aspect about Healer is the music.  From what I got from I Hear Your Voice – being my ultimate standard for Koreanovelas – the best drama music are those that could enhance the mood and atmosphere of the story.  And the “Healer” theme and Michael Learns to Rock’s “Eternal Love” do just that perfectly.

So to wrap this up…
Healer does have missteps, there are some frustrating and cheesy parts, and it’s not as intelligent or as impactful I wanted it to be.  But it’s fun, engaging, and memorable nonetheless, and I’m pleased with the series all in all.

(The next Koreanovela that I will be binge-watching – and then reviewing – is Girl Who Sees Smells)

Tuesday, September 08, 2015

What Makes ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ a Comedy and Anti-War Masterpiece



Making my “Top 10 TV Shows That Ran Before I Was Born” list, I became inspired to rewatch the Blackadder series (no. 2 in the list, btw) for the nth time.  It’s quite easy to binge-watch since, not only is it a very delightful watch, but it’s also relatively short.  Each series only have six episodes, around 30 minutes each.  That’s a total of 12 hours of viewing, more or less.  The whole thing reminded me why I loved it ever since, and affirmed my opinion that it really gets much better with each series. 

This means that Blackadder Goes Forth – the fourth and last – is the best of them, and I think everyone who have seen all four series will agree with me.  First of all, it is objectively the funniest and cleverest.  Secondly, its opening sequence is the catchiest, most amiable, and most entertaining – the characters are introduced while in a march along a medley of “The British Grenadiers” (the iconic marching anthem of the British military, dating back to the 17th century) and the Blackadder theme (seriously, rewatching the title sequences over and over again provides much fun already). 

But what really makes Blackadder Goes Forth impressively stand out above the rest is the fact that it is able to convey a powerful anti-war message through its brilliant satirical insights on war without trivializing the sobering period of human history the series is set upon and without disrespecting the real-life people who took part in it.  And this facet personally had much impact on me.    

As a kid, I thought of war as a romantic, glorious thing.  I loved playing with my collection of toy soldiers and pellet guns.  My favorite Bible stories were those that featured epic battles.  I enjoyed the G.I. Joe cartoons and comics.  I was thrilled when reading about wars in history.  I devoured everything – documentaries, essays, books, movies, etc. – that featured anything relating to war, whether it’s historical or fictional.  I drew battle scenes during idle times in school.  When I saw Saving Private Ryan and other war movies, I unconsciously dismissed the war horrors it portrayed and instead reveled on the exciting violence and explosions of its action scenes.  Yes, I did have some understanding already that time that war is not all glory and thrills, but I didn’t really quite grasp yet the magnitude of the other side of the coin.  To me then, the deaths were mere numbers, the devastation mere black and white pictures, and the accounts and narratives mere objects to take fascination on.  

It was only with Blackadder Goes Forth that really made me deeply understand for the first time that war is indeed a terrible, terrible thing.  It was not Saving Private Ryan or any war/anti-war movies that made me reflect on this.  Not history books or photos.  Not even Life Is Beautiful (an Oscar-winning Italian film back in the 90’s, which I had enjoyed) – it almost did, but not entirely.  It was ironically the sitcom Blackadder Goes Forth that didSince then, I’ve seen this series many times already, but each time gives the same impact on me as the first time I saw it.

Set in the Western Front trenches of World War I, Blackadder Goes Forth focuses on Captain Edmund Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) as he attempts to be removed from his post in the trenches before another “big push” is ordered by his eccentric, buffoonish commander, General Melchett (Stephen Fry).   Blackadder isn’t necessarily a coward.  It’s just that he wants to avoid being sent over the top on the infamous “No Man’s Land” because it will result to certain death.  He doesn't want to die in such utterly meaningless manner.

So in the first five episodes, we see Blackadder jump at every opportunity and scheme that will allow him to leave the trenches, which ultimately fails in the end.  As to be expected, hilarity ensues during these misadventures.  But more than that, through its satirical gags and dialogue, subtle but provocative anti-war sentiments are delivered.  Though war logic is exaggerated so it can be lampooned, the lingering thought that it leaves would reveal in retrospect that the realistic version of it is actually as absurd and foolish.

For example, in the first episode, General Melchett heartens one of the soldiers, reminding him that if should he falter, he should just remind himself that the general is behind him.  To which Captain Blackadder bitterly comments, “About 35 miles behind you.”  Funny, but thought-provoking as well.

But the clincher is the final episode, “Goodbyeee” – which is definitely one of the most powerful finales in TV history (SPOILERS from this point on). With the order for the “big push” finally given, Blackadder makes another ploy to be sent away by pretending to be mad.  But this, like his previous schemes, doesn’t work.  As he muses later on, “Who would have noticed another madman round here?”


The episode plays out that is typical of the show: funny and smart.  But around its 17-minute mark, it starts giving indications that this episode is going to be different.  With the “big push” nearing, Blackadder and his men reminisce the past – realizing that many of their acquaintances are dead already.  Then Private Baldrick (Tony Robinson) remarks, “Why can't we just stop, sir? Why can't we just say, ‘No more killing; let's all go home’? Why would it be stupid just to pack it in, sir?  Why?”  I was taken aback.  The series has at least three moronic characters, and Baldrick is the stupidest of them.  This kind of insight coming out of Baldrick is something atypical.

The next scene, General Melchett informs Captain Kevin Darling (Tim McInnerny), who serves as his personal assistant, that he will be assigned to the frontlines immediately to join the “big push.”  Much to Darling’s horror, Melchett misguidedly believes that he is favoring Darling by letting him join the “fun and games.”  On the contrary, “folding the general’s pajamas”, as Darling puts it, is something he prefers over being sent to the trenches since, despite any discomfort and humiliation he might receive as the general’s aide, he’s at least safe away from the conflict.  Darling tries to protest, but the general – erroneously believing that Darling is simply having a hard time parting ways because of his loyalty and affection for him – “unselfishly” cuts him off and assures him that it’s okay.


Throughout the series, Darling has served as the primary antagonist of the story, being Blackadder’s rival and tormentor (and vice versa).  Thus, there are some justified laughs to be had from his misfortune.  But any satisfaction is restrained, and not really something cheer-worthy.  In fact, when Darling joins Blackadder in the dugout, he doesn’t mock him about it, but simply welcomes him, “Here to join us for the last waltz?”  (At this point, emotion was already welling inside me as I watched.)  Blackadder – as well as any decent audience – understands that, in this particular context, there is no pleasure in seeing a man – even as snobbish as Darling – being sent to certain death.

Finally, it’s the simple admission from the idealistic, enthusiastic, but dim-witted Lieutenant George (Hugh Laurie) that broke my heart: “I’m scared, sir.”  (Private Baldrick echoes the same sentiment.)  George adds, “I don’t want to die.  I’m not overkeen on dying at all, sir.”  

Up until that point, George has been depicted to be seemingly uncaring or ignorant of the perils of war – consistently thrilled of the opportunity to fight for “king and country.”  It probably finally dawned on him at that point that the thing he feels is “bloomin'ell worth it” (as he claimed earlier in the episode) isn’t really worth dying for.  Hence, the unexpected, innocent honesty makes the scene devastating.  

My eyes were misty, and a lump had formed in my throat.


As the call to assemble is given, the script makes a hilarious, dark joke in a likely attempt to ease tension…
Captain Blackadder: “Don't forget your stick, Lieutenant.”
Lt. George: “Oh no, sir -- wouldn't want to face a machine gun without this!”
(I’m not sure if George is being sarcastic, or has reverted to his usual personality.)

With the men lining up outside, I was still expecting – wishing – that something – preferably, a comedic something – would happen at the last second that would prevent them from participating in this “big push.”  For a second, it seemed that was going to be so…
Captain Darling: “Listen! Our guns have stopped.”
Lt. George: “You don't think...?”
Private Baldrick: “Maybe the war's over. Maybe it's peace!”
Lt. George: “Well, hurrah! The big knobs have gone round the table and yanked the iron out of the fire!”

But when Darling exclaims, “Thank God! We lived through it! The Great War: 1914-1917,” the small flicker of hope vanishes.  It reminded me that the year was still 1917 in that story.  I know my history.  World War I ended in 1918.

The more cautious and cynical Blackadder deflates the men’s wishful thinking by bitterly commenting, “I'm afraid not.  The guns have stopped because we're about to attack. Not even our generals are mad enough to shell their own men.  They think it's far more sporting to let the Germans do it.”

The men puts a foot forward, waits for the signal to go over the top.  Blackadder mutters a “Good luck, everyone” before the whistle to advance is blown.

With a yell, the men go over the top and charges.  They are met with German gunfire.  The scene plays in slow motion.  Explosions and smoke and dirt fill the shot.  Sad piano music plays in the background.  The scene shifts to the empty, devastating aftermath, which then gradually shifts to the peaceful, poppy fields as what it is now in present time.


The last episode has thoroughly made the characters shine.  They were revealed to be actually noble and courageous, despite the weaknesses they had shown throughout the series.  Even if they were already likable, the episode made the audience to care more deeply and affectionately for them.  And because the attachment has been established firmly, the tragic ending was emphatic.  It hurt.  Through this, the show is able to effectively make these characters represent the countless brave men that perished at the hands of the hellish madness of War, who equally deserves – if not twice as much – the respect, appreciation, and heartbreak that I felt for Blackadder and his men.

How the show built up and executed everything going into that finale – all that comedy unexpectedly turning towards that beautiful, heartbreaking ending – is just brilliant.  I was laughing all throughout the series, and then, just like that, the final minutes pulled the rug under me.  The impact of the 180o turn in its tone effortlessly provoked reflection – becoming a forceful reminder of the dreadful reality that the show is based upon.

It’s one of the most powerful TV viewing moments I’ve ever had.  Thank you, Star World, for rerunning this awesome show for the tween me (was around 10 to 12 years old when I saw Blackadder Goes Forth for the first time).

Blackadder Goes Forth is a work of pure genius.  It pulls off making a comedy out of a sensitive topic without being offensive.  Compare that to the comedy philosophy of today that leans more on being intentionally crude and offensive to earn laughs.  So not only does Blackadder Goes Forth achieve first-rate comedy, but class and depth as well, thus, unhindered by pretentiousness in its delivery of an anti-war message that works.

War still fascinates me as a topic, I still enjoy it if it’s depicted in the context of fiction, and I still believe that war – or any dark, delicate themes, for that matter – always has room for humor, if it’s executed with thoughtfulness and respect.  Moreover, I’m not really a radical pacifist – I’m not ignorant of its unavoidable necessity in some cases in this depraved world.  However, war is something that I believe shouldn’t be treated trivially or celebrated by itself.  Blackadder Goes Forth taught me that.