THE BREAK-UP by jaiskizzy

after meeting at a baseball game, a tour guide dude and rachel, from friends, fall madly in love with each other, and live in a condo together, seemingly inseparable. but then one night, through an argument over lemons, the artsy girlfriend calls it quits with her video-game-loving boyfriend. both parties, however, refuse to leave the condo, and they start throwing sht at each other (figuratively, of course, but what a sight it would have been if it wasn’t, eh?) to determine who’ll fold up first and make amends. who will win this war? hang on to your lover’s hair ‘cause some of the stuff you’ll see will be familiar.

let’s face it, love’s a killer. sure it’s a good thing, it inspires you, makes you feel high and all, but you’re putting so much at stake, it’s a disaster when it goes bad. they called it “falling” in love for good reason. it’s a risk to take that path: either someone catches you or you end up in pieces at the bottom. and even if somebody did catch you, you know there’s still a slim chance they just might throw you over again. i know because i’ve had four ex-girlfriends, and each one of them i thought, she was the one. anyways, this movie has a lot of truth in it. it begins with pictures of vince vaughn and jennifer aniston kissing, having fun with friends, kissing, going to places, and… kissing. just what all couples in love have. awww sweetness… well, some good things must come to an end because what other thing do all couple have? fights (seriously if you’ve honestly never had a fight with your significant other over anything, you’re lying). and like most fights we all have, this one is just as stupid: vince bought 3 apples when jennifer asked him to buy 12. they shout, say things they’d regret later, things get out of hand, boom. the movie’s title. the movie, however, i think is not about who was right or wrong. it’s about the consequences, the aftermath of the break-up, and choices they made, which, even though meant for laughs, was making it all worse. jennifer goes on dating other guys, vince invites some strippers over, stuff we all would have done as well given that situation despite having knowledge that it’s wrong. that’s how very faithful to life this film is and im pretty sure anyone who watches this will have one or two realizations.

im not gonna go and ruin the ending for those who haven’t seen it. well, there really isn’t any ending to ruin because it does not matter how it ends. only two things can happen after a break-up: one, you go your separate ways and either forget about each other or be friends; and two, you get back together. anyways, you probably wouldn’t like how this movie ends, but i guess that’s an intended reaction. it shows you what happens if you do this or that. i think the ending’s just right.

i apologize if im making this sound more like a love doctor’s lecture than a movie review. apart from its genuine representation of relationships, there’s zero else worth noting. this film is mostly vince vaughn, i guess the writer was male. he did well in his role, give and take pretty much how we all men are. lazy, insensitive, stubborn. vince vaughn was a good choice, words that come out from his mouth are some of the words that stay in my head. im sure some of that weren’t in the script. now i cant say the same for jennifer aniston. she’s still rachel to me. she really oughta something about it, take on a role like charlize theron in monster and maybe she can shake off that “friends”-style of acting and show her versatility. else, i, and others who have seen her wear the princes leia costume for ross, would never get the chance to take her seriously (but a round of applause for that walking-around-naked scene).

overall, there’s just not enough laughs to consider this film a comedy. it’s more like a bad but convincing reality tv show episode. except that it’s not real. anyways, i think only those in a solid, strong relationship can survive watching this. if you’re having a tough time with your pardner, stay away, this won’t help. instead, just get porn.

the good: the arguments, how most couples would relate to it, and jennifer aniston’s ass.
the bad: flat minor characters, and inadequate humor.
the ugly: the tone rangers. and marilyn dean. ugh.
the score: 5 lemons.


jai

Read More

PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST by jaiskizzy

the gist: in this swashbucklin sequel to the curse of the black pearl, the talented mr. johnny depp returns as the peculiar pirate and antihero of the high seas, jack sparrow. pardon me... captain jack sparrow. legolas/will turner and his hottie wife-to-be, keira knightley, are need to find him to save their necks from the gallows, he, on the other hand is looking for a key which would open a chest, the contents of which will help him settle his debt of death to the dreadful davy jones. will the captain succeed in salvaging his soul? will will (tee-hee!) turner and his feisty fiancee do some pleasurable pirate pumping? (mickey says nope!) oh well... avast, landlubbers! wacko captain jacko is backo.

the reaction: the only other pirate movie i saw before this and after the first one is a porn flick entitled pirates. yes, you read that right. porn. but clear your head of the cheesy nonsense pre-sex situations and equally cheesy nonsense dialogue because pirates was actually a very good movie. it had great special effects. it had a story. it had set designs. it had costumes. and yes it had hardcore sex, but the point is that it looked like a hollywood-made film, leaping miles beyond b-movie territory. bottomline: if a porn company can come up with something like that, what more can hollywood do right? well, years ago, the curse of the black pearl became a surprise hit as nobody thought that a movie based on a disneyland theme park ride and made by kid-friendly disney would do well in the box office. it surpassed expectations and left the fans wanting more. turns out it's actually a trilogy, and here came part 2. is dead man's chest as good as its predecessor? nah... it's better! the first one was a fresh fun frolicky flick on a subject none of us havent seen in decades: pirates (hook was about peter pan, mostly). it introduced us to captain jack sparrow, will turner, and elizabeth swann, and now they've taken these three persons (and some small players) and put them in an all-new adventure, against the usual way of sequels showing pretty much the same from the original, comparable to the equally entertaining indiana jones movies.

dead man's chest begins with a woman's chest, keira knightley under the rain, and from there we are taken on a wild roller coaster-y ride, and i think exactly a roller coaster ride because the movie kinda starts off slow (this is for non-watchers of the first movie to get to know the characters), much like the long queue you go through before you actually get strapped onto the cars. however, i was never bored with any of the non-action scenes and though that it was a proper re-introduction, especially with captain jack sparrow and his count of monte cristo-inspired entrance (note that gun he aptly brandishes in the posters). once that is done, the movie picks up the pace and kicks off the endless fun. like the first one, this may be an action-adventure movie but it never takes itself seriously, and ultimately triumphs as a comedy. but dont expect the laugh-out-loud balls-to-the-floor type. the movie is about silly fun and that's the kind of fun-ny you will get. i had the most laughs for the sequences in the cannibal tribe island. cannibalism has never been as hilarious. even the serious character of will turner takes part in the hilarity. but of course, when it comes to fun, the captain is your prime pirate. also, if you pay attention to the dialogue, there'll be lots of jokes and innuendos to giggle at.

dead man's chest does not let one down on the awe aspect as well. i enjoyed all the action sequences a lot, the three-way swordfight was great from start to finish. the special effects were awesome, so awesome that in some parts, it's hard to tell which are real and which are cgi. of course, the magnificent monster of mayhem, the kraken, is obviously cgi but all of its scenes were terrific. but davy jones wins the best cgi prize on this one. this octopus-faced villain was so well-done, some kid's gonna have nightmares about him. those tentacles are so life-like, always squirming about, and davy jones even uses them as extra limbs to hold things and play the piano (as opposed to the low budget medusa effect of darna's nemesis, valentina, using eels. the nerve these morons claim that they're at par with hollywood standards! spit!). great character design and great translation on the screen. also, one memorable scene for me is when the flying dutchman, davy jones' sinister skeletal ship, submerges into the ocean with and over-the-shoulder camera angle on an unflinching davy jones. neato!

the actors get the largest portion of kudos, and the versatile mr. johnny depp takes most of it, being the genius behind captain jack sparrow. instead of giving us the cliche cutthroat pirate performance, he opted for an eccentric swaggerring almost gay-like interpretation, loosely based on the rolling stones guitarist keith richards, at least according to the depp (keith richards will play captain jack sparrow's father in part 3). and just like in part 1, the depp carried the whole film, owning every scene he appears in. of course, legolas and keira "amidala decoy" knightley were just as great with their respective roles, orlando, keeping his will turner as the calculated commanding hero against the happy-go-lucky wing-it captain jack sparrow, and keira being pouty and spunky and yummy like most girlfriends are. i wouldnt have cared if she didnt have any lines. she did a naked vanity fair cover. she's hot. the rest of the minor characters did well too, biggs was good and so is the inclusion of bald headed fatso and guy with a wooden eye, but i cant help but notice that the beckett guy was sort of doing a captain jack sparrow thing with his role. and who would forget bill nighy as davy jones, yes there was a real actor behind that cgi, the dude who played the rude old rockstar in love actually and sang "christmas is all around me", and viktor in underworlds 1 & 2. the voicing was just perfect. overall, a cast of champions.

the conclusion: shiver me timbers! a well-done follow-up movie to a seemingly hard to follow-up movie (i hope you understood that). the figures agree: dead man's chest took the record from spider-man for being the highest grossing film on its opening weekend (spidey=114.8 million; captain jack=$132 million). a cult series in the making, im sure that disney will find it difficult to turn a blind eye to the fans after part 3 arrives and proves to be a splash hit as well. if disney makes the right decisions, i strongly believe that the pirates of the caribbean franchise can do to the sea what star wars did to space. arrr!

the good: the special effects, the comedy, and captain jack sparrow.
the bad: some incomprehensible pirate language, and the slightly uneven pace.
the ugly: davy jones's crew.
the verdict: 8 compasses that do not point north.


captain jai skizzo

Read More

SUPERMAN RETURNS by jaiskizzy

it has been five years since superman disappeared from the face of the earth just like that (snap!). the world has moved on with him, and so has lois lane, who is now with a child and a new man in her life. and just like that (snap!) the big blue boy scout returns and catches up on the things he missed. meanwhile, the evil lex luthor has another evil scheme up his evil sleeve: use the crystals he found in superman's fortress of solitude to make a new kryptonian continent right next to america. will he succeed or will our formidable flying friend foil the foul fiendish foe's felony? fee-fi-fo-fum!

first, i am angered that they did not show us the spider-man 3 teaser trailer. it was supposed to be included in all prints of superman returns, and i so expected to see it in the theater but alas! some morons decided not to release it just yet. what? they gonna show it in front of some stupid pinoy teen love team flick? curses! disappointed, i went to apple.com and watched the trailer there and thanks to the goosebumps, i am now okay.

so there i was with layla, lying on our lazy-boy seats, finishing our popcorn and drinks before the movie started. then the lights went out, spider-man was a no show, and then... superman returned. as kyrpton exploded and the credits rolled (or flashed, like the opening credits of superman 1, props to that!), i repeated in my head a pre-movie mantra i think every comic book geek knows: please, don't suck... please, don't suck... please, don't suck...

well, it didnt suck. it... sipped (i hope you get it).

as a kid, when i first saw superman the movie in betamax, i thought it was the most amazing thing i have ever seen in my entire life. holy hummingbirds, that man can fly! fast forward to the present, it is only understandable for a fanboy like me to expect as much. but i read a couple of not so good reviews, and i forced myself to lower my expectations. now those were met. the rest, misfired. i believe that it is bryan singer's fault, that he was given too much freedom with the material, and that he wanted to pay homage to the original too much that he made a movie that had personality issues. wait, folks. dont crucify me yet. i liked the movie. i feel i got my money's worth. but it needs improvement. it has more flaws than i thought it would have.

now before i delve into the details of what worked and what didnt in superman returns, i must warn you that i will be treading in spoilersville. actually, to me, this review is spoiler-free. i mean, what is there to spoil? it's superman versus lex, superman will obviously win and save the day. plus, there's the love story and we all know where that's going, so technically, no spoilers. but for goodness' sake, if you havent watched the movie, i would recommend that you stop reading this right now and just come back here when you've seen it. thanks.

passionately honoring the superman legend and choosing to follow the continuity of superman 2 was both a hit and miss for bryan singer and co. sure, he had to show his love for the superman mythos and do this as a tribute to those who went before him, but this only makes superman returns less original, seeming like more of a remake (of superman 1) than a sequel. some of it where cool though, like retaining the silly but iconic cowlick, and the one photograph of superman carrying a car above him which is exactly like the action comics #1 cover where superman first appeared. i did like the superman and lois flying scene a bit (which they already did in superman 1) because this one was done in a different context and how this used the same theme that played in the original. (layla questioned what the flying scene was for, to which i replied that in superman 2, superman erased lois lane's memory of her knowledge that clark kent is superman and who knows what else was deleted. and besides, if i was superman, id take her flying everyday!). and while im on the subject of flight, the flying effects were okay but having scene all of this in matrix reloaded and revolutions, it wasnt anytything new.

i didnt like the idea of superman just leaving like that without saying au revoir to search for kryptonian answers and then come home with nothing. they should have at least made him find something, no matter how insignificant, or or maybe something found him, so that at least his 5 year-absence was a total waste of time. it's also awkward how his return was just accepted like air by everyone, except lois, and as clark kent he just goes back to work like he just took a day off. the coincidence of superman and clark being gone at the same time and returning at the same time wasnt even touched. only one scene sniffs at this suspicious subject: lois lane and her husband-to-be compare superman's stats with clark's but they dismiss it with a nerdy wave from clark. a weak scene, would've have been better if clark clumnsily toppled a pen holder or a pile of papers instead. superman returns scores low on humor. not much in the drama department either, so leave your box of tissues at home (in superman 1 i fought tears from fallin when jonathan kent died and clark said that he couldnt even save him despite all his powers. classic). i guess bryan singer needs to work on his tearjerking.

what i do think bryano is quite good at is finding untapped talent. he gave us hugh jackman with wolverine, now he's got brandon routh. when i first saw this guy in a few online pics as clark kent, he had a slight resemblance to the late christopher reeve. in the movie, not only does he look a bit like chris, he sounds very much like him as well, especially in clark kent move. he was great as clark kent, but kinda lacked the simpleton-ness that chris conveyed. he also did good as superman (the resemblance ends with clark kent), but still needs to work on the level of respect that chris's superman demanded. and is it me, or doesnt the way he flies looks kinda awkward? (this is evident in the pre-end credits flight scene where brandon flies and smiles to the camera the same manner it was done by chris in the 4 superman films. im sure that if you played those scenes side by side, you'd notice the difference.) i also think he needs to practice "pain" acting more. tom welling seemed better at this. overall, mr routh was a good choice for this role. another good choice which really surprised me was kate bosworth. i initally thought she was a miscast, considering her previous roles (a babe in rules of attraction, a surfer chick in blue crush), and how she didnt look like the lois lane type. but lick my loins, what a great performance by miss bosworth. great as reporter lois, great as mommy lois, and great as you-left-and-i-moved-on lois. would have been better with a pinch of margot kidder's quirkiness, the role was kinda too serious, but that's just me. photo-junkie jimmy olsen was good, and so was perry white, although i wonder what it would have been like if hugh laurie (house) got the role. the inclusion of cyclops was okay too, a good guy instead of being "she's mine" psychotic. it was also nice to see that the kid didnt do any haley joel osment or dakota fanning all-out acting (watch out for the piano scene). also, the little screen time that martha kent had was effective, especially in her last scene, looking up at the hospital because she cant go in or else she blows superman's cover. which finally brings us to the role of lex luthor. hmm. ive always like kevin spacey as an actor, he was great in the usual suspects (also by b.s.), k-pax, american beauty, the life of david gale etc. here, he wasnt great. not even good, imho. i prefer the lex luthor portrayal of gene hackman, and im sure kevin spacey used that as inspiration and mixed it with his own, which led to a mad, unconvincing lex. gene hackman's lex was arrogant and rude and funny, repetitively proclaiming that he is the greatest criminal mind of the century, and casually dealing with three powerful kryptonian villains. kevin spacey's lex just comes off as a 2-dimensional power-hungry mastermind. i do however have sort of absorbed his "billions!" and "wroonnngg!!!" lines, so i guess he managed to squeeze in a good one. and then there's lex's neanderthal minions, one who looks like will ferrell and another who looks like adrien brody, who were pretty useless, and i couldnt see why they had to cast kumar from harold & kumar go to white castle, in an equally useless, yes-sir role. kitty was great though, enjoyed her car with no breaks scene, but she is no ms. teschmacher.

now about the costume... it was fine with me. they had to do some changes, okay. the s became smaller, okay. there's an s on the belt and no s on the cape, okay. keyword: acceptance. but i think the colors were kinda dull. when the s shield is displayed in the opening credits, it was shiny and vibrant. why then did they have a different color scheme with the costume? because... the shield would look dull if they used the costume colors. sheesh. and then there is superman's boots. or, more appropriately, his "combat" boots. looked like they were designed by skechers. very out of place with superman's sleek suit. and by the way, they really schould start tackling the science behind the costume. if bullets ricocheting off of it dont leave a scratch, how come a human doctor was able to rip it off so easily?

all in all, i think this was a good "reintroduction" movie. im sure some would get blown away by the airplane resuce sequence. it was good scene, but i thought it needed more oomph, as this movie needed more action than just superman carrying stuff. heat vision was used well here, i particularly liked the sheet that superman made to disintegrate the falling debris. after several paragraphs, i still havent said enough about this movie. there many other things to like and love, to hate and hiss at. maybe it was just that we expected too much after taking so long for the movie to arrive at the silvescreen. remember, it could have been worse: nicholas cage was once cast as superman and one producer wanted to make some "gay" changes. clearly, bryan singer wasnt able to perform the magic he did with xmen 1 & 2 but was able to put on a good show for fans and non-fans alike. and hey, it's superman, dude! that man can fly!

the good: homages, acting, and that one scene where superman bathes in the sun's rays!
the bad: lex, costume, having nothing new.
the ugly: the borrowed scenes from spider-man (run jump run) and james bond (you'll see... well, only if you saw goldeneye).
the verdict: 7 kryptonite shards.

superskizzy.

Read More