Movie: Jack the Giant Slayer

“Jack the Giant Slayer tells the story of an ancient war that is reignited when a young farmhand unwittingly opens a gateway between our world and a fearsome race of giants. Unleashed on the Earth for the first time in centuries, the giants strive to reclaim the land they once lost, forcing the young man, Jack (Nicholas Hoult) into the battle of his life to stop them. Fighting for a kingdom, its people, and the love of a brave princess, he comes face to face with the unstoppable warriors he thought only existed in legend-and gets the chance to become a legend himself.” — (C) Warner Bros

Not a fan.

Okay, so I might be a little tired from all the things I have been doing in real life. But I was well-rested, sort of, before coming in to watch Jack the Giant Slayer. So imagine my surprise when I slept through the opening scenes.

It wasn’t until the beanstalk sprouted from the ground that things started to feel like something was happening. I didn’t fall asleep after that. I did start to wonder though what story the movie was going to tell, because by that point, I realized that the movie was only about one thing: Jack wants to get inside the princess’s pants.

I read somewhere online that the film was very handsome. And it is. Everything looks great. The computer animated bits? Seamless. Well, the giants looked a tiny bit too clean, but that was it. The rest were visually pleasing. The costumes, the sets–everything. Now, if only the people behind the film spent just as much time on the story.

The story of Jack the Giant Slayer really starts on the night the beanstalk shoots up, up to Jack finding a way to stop the giants from killing everyone. The rest of what happens feels like filler, scenes to stuff the film with just so it looks like there’s a lot happening. What it succeeds in doing though is make the film drag.

Seriously. The film takes so long to get anywhere, and by the time it does, everything just suddenly speeds up and before you know it, the movie’s done.

And the worst part is, I wasn’t even entertained. Well, I was a little. Ewan McGregor is a hoot as Elmont, the leader of the King’s elite guard. Stanley Tucci’s Roderick was exceptionally evil. The rest of the cast, I think, took their roles too seriously. And that created a disjoint, I think. A movie that has sight gags and cheeky winks at the audiences shouldn’t allow their leads act like they’re on a sweeping love story.

I think this was the biggest reason why I couldn’t connect with the film. The film couldn’t even connect with itself!

But that’s just how I see it. Have you seen the film? What can you say about the retelling of Jack and the Beanstalk?

Movie: Hansel & Gretel, Witch Hunters

“After getting a taste for blood as children, Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) have become the ultimate vigilantes, hell bent on retribution. Now, unbeknownst to them, Hansel and Gretel have become the hunted, and must face an evil far greater than witches… their past.” — (C) Paramount

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is good, fun entertainment. It’s not particularly jaw-dropping or anything remotely resembling brilliance, but it sure gives you what you pay for–release from the stress of every day life.

The film tells the story of the titular characters after defeating the witch that wanted to eat them. In the original story, Hansel and Gretel find a cache of treasures and find their way back home to their father, finding out that their evil mother has already died. In this version, Hansel and Gretel never find their way back home–instead, they carve a place for themselves in towns they stumble into… as witch hunters.

When the story really begins, Hansel and Gretel are already well-known witch hunters. They arrive in a town just in time to save a woman from being falsely accused of being a witch. But saving her, the town is left with no one to blame for eleven missing children. Our main heroes rise to the occasion, and they do sound and logical detective work… which they didn’t really have to do after all.

The plot of the story twists into Hansel and Gretel’s past, as the main villain reveals that she will be coming for Gretel before it’s all over–because the girl has something that the villain requires.

And as the adventure continues through well-placed (but completely obvious) foreshadowing of who Hansel and Gretel really are, the movie delivers on the main thing it promises: action and gore. And it does it well.

The only things I really didn’t like were things that made the era feel strange. They have injections and customized weapons that are too advanced for the time period. It doesn’t look like the industrial revolution has already happened, and yet they are utilizing tools that won’t get invented until after the said revolution. I understand that the film is stylized, that it isn’t aiming for historical accuracy–but if so, why not just go completely out of the bank? Why not go for a steam punk feel, which would make Hansel and Gretel fit into the setting better.

Of course, it can be argued that it was intentional: that Hansel and Gretel really shouldn’t fit in amongst the rest of the characters, as they really shouldn’t. But it was something that bugged me throughout. The only thing that bugged me.

At the end of the day though, the rest of the film was enjoyable. Not stellar, not mind-blowing, not completely original–but it was completely enjoyable. And that’s what is important, isn’t it, when taking a break?

Book: Fairy Tale Fail

“Ellie thought she knew what she wanted in a guy: someone dependable, and someone she could bring home to her parents. In other words, a good guy to complete here happily-ever-after fairy tale. When her good guy boyfriend all of a sudden dumps her in the place she least expected–saying that she is ‘a failure at relationships’–Ellie feels she has to fight harder to make her fairy tale come true.

But when hot and mysterious Lucas, whom Ellie secretly calls Rock Star, enters her life and starts challenging everything she believes in, she has to face the truth about her goals and dreams. Will Ellie find the fairy tale she’s always dreamed of? And more importantly, who will fill the swashbuckling shoes of Prince Charming to give her story the happy ending she so deserves?

As far as chic-lits go, this one’s pretty predictable–and, oddly enough, it adds to the charm of the book.

Main character Ellie is easily relatable because she’s not infallible. Supposed good guy Don immediately reads like the bad guy. And Rock Star Lucas, while crossed out of the Prince Charming list right from the get go, is obviously the guy our heroine ends up with. In other books, I would probably complain about them being too clear cut. With Fairy Tale Fail though, I say it works.

Why?

Number one, the book isn’t that long. I think it’s a rule for the pocketbooks published by Summit Books to actually fit in pockets. Going deeper into the characters and having them develop more will mean a longer (and thicker) book. And for a story as flimsy as Fairy Tale Fail, a dive into character progression might prove to be the book’s unraveling.

And, come on, you’re not going to pick this book up to be intellectually stimulated.

Fairy Tale Fail is a book for romantics, for those who are looking for a short respite from the harshness of reality. I’m not saying that makes up for the fact that the book offers nothing new in the world of chick literature. What I’m saying is, you’re really not supposed to expect anything more from a book this thin, in a genre that’s already seen so many iterations of the same story.

When you pick this book up, you don’t expect a classic. And sometimes, that’s the kind of book you need to help you relax.

I don’t know though if I share sentiments with other bloggers, but we can find out:
The Blair Book Project
Reading is the Ultimate Aphrodisiac
One More Page

Movie: Beastly

“Kyle Kingson has it all – looks, intelligence, wealth and opportunity – and a wicked cruel streak. Prone to mocking and humiliating “aggressively unattractive” classmates, he zeroes in on Goth classmate Kendra, inviting her to the school’s extravagant environmental bash. Kendra accepts, and, true to form, Kyle blows her off in a particularly savage fashion. She retaliates by casting a spell that physically transforms him into everything he despises. Enraged by his horrible and unrecognizable appearance he confronts Kendra and learns that the only solution to the curse is to find someone that will love him as he is – a task he considers impossible. Repulsed by his appearance, Kyle’s callous father banishes him to Brooklyn with a sympathetic housekeeper and blind tutor. As Kyle ponders how to overcome the curse and get his old life back, he chances upon a drug addict in the act of killing a threatening dealer. Seizing the opportunity, Kyle promises the addict freedom and safety for his daughter, Lindy if she will consent to live in Kyle’s Brooklyn home. Thus begins Kyle’s journey to discover true love in this hyper-modern retelling of the classic “Beauty and the Beast” story.“

For fans of the book, let me say that the movie remains faithful to the love story that blossoms between Kyle and Linda/Lindy, as well as the circumstances on how Kyle becomes a “beast.” Everything else was tweaked and adjusted to make the story less fairy-tale-like.

Spoiler-phobes, beware. I do not know what I may or may not reveal in the succeeding paragraphs:

Watching Beastly, I have to say I’m on the fence whether I like the film adaptation or not. If I were to look at it as a movie independent of a book, I have to say it was well-written, a bit slow, but good in general–it’s not something I would recommend to everyone though. It’s pretty much a chick flick. But relating it to the book it was adapted from, I have to warn the fans that they’re definitely not getting what they might expect–having read the book.

If this is a good thing, it’s up to the viewer to decide; but let’s count the ways the two are different:

Number one, of course, is the time limit. The book gives Kyle two years to find a girl to fall in love with him. That’s more workable than the one year the movie gives our main protagonists. Also, that gives Kyle more time to grow as a person. But they’ve made tweaks in Kyle’s character in the movie that he doesn’t actually need two years to develop into a nicer person. The movie version has instances of goodness, a kindness the book version shows only to Magda (the book version of Zola, the housekeeper).

Second, Kyle’s love story with Lindy already begins on their first meeting. Well, Kyle’s first time to notice Lindy at school. In the book, their first meeting is a bit more nonchalant. The movie already plants seeds of love during their first meeting.

And I just realized that if I list everything the movie changed, this will become a very long post. Let’s just say they changed everything from the moment Kyle turned into a beast. So when you watch Beastly the film, you will not be watching the movie version of the book–you’re watching a film adapted from the material given by the book.

Aside from the development of Kyle and Lindy’s relationship, which I’ve mentioned stays pretty true to the book. All the details have been changed. The biggest change being Lindy’s confession of love to Kyle. It actually makes sense that they would change this part of the story. While the chase scene that ends with Adrian (the book version of Hunter) saving Lindy’s life works with the book, I think it would have been a bit forced for the film. So I applaud them for having the smarts to change it.

The change I wasn’t so happy with though has to do with Magda (Zola in the movie) and Will–the supporting characters in Kyle’s life as a beast. In the book, they had more character–more reason to be where they were. But in the film, they were relegated so much to the background that I actually thought they’d become superfluous. They were plot movers–not characters.

One of the things I really liked in the book was the twist in Magda’s character–which gave Kyle’s wish for her to be reunited with her family more weight, more depth. In the movie, the twist was taken away–and I have no idea why. It wouldn’t have needed more explanation than what was given in the book–so why take it?

And one of the things I really didn’t like about the movie was the inclusion of a blind Barney (of How I Met Your Mother) passing himself off as the tutor Will. I mean, I admire Neil Patrick Harris as an actor, and he is hitting it off the ballpark every episode in the current season of How I Met Your Mother. So I’m a little confused as to why we’re seeing a blind Barney in Beastly. Was this the director’s decision? Or the studio’s? Because I really thought it was important for Will to be Kyle’s guide to maturity–to acceptance. And I didn’t see that in the film.

Still, while I’m still not sure whether I liked it or not, I have to say I enjoyed the movie as a whole. The good outweighed the bad. And that’s the important thing.

Right?

movie: tangled

last year, disney came out with their latest princess movie: TANGLED. finally, it’s reached the shores of the philippines. and i have to say, the movie is definitely worth the wait.

TANGLED is a retelling of the classic fairy tale rapunzel. the story revolves around a girl with a very long hair, the witch who kidnapped her and kept her hostage, and the prince who would eventually come to save her (and prove to her that there is such a thing as love).

while the basics of rapunzel remains in TANGLED, it is definitely a more adventurous, and more gripping story than its original counterpart. for one thing, the witch isn’t magical–and she’s keeping rapunzel alive because of her magic hair.

what do you do when you’ve discovered the secret to staying young forever? a flower borne from a single drop of sunlight. gothel’s answer was to keep it secret from everyone else. unfortunately for her, she made a mistake in not taking it. and so villagers take the flower to treat their ailing queen.

the magic of the flower is absorbed by the then-pregnant queen, only to be passed on to her child: rapunzel.

the witch, gothel, discovers that the magic of the flower is now present in rapunzel’s hair. she tries to take a lock of hair, and discovers that the magic disappears once the hair is cut. and so she does the next best thing: she takes the child instead.

and so begins the story of rapunzel in TANGLED. eighteen years pass and she is kept in the tower by gothel, who she now knows as her mother. and everything is humdrum for her–until the arrival of flynn rider. unlike in the classic story, flynn is nothing like a prince. instead, we get a thief with a fake reputation.

and instead of a courtship that develops because a prince falls in love with a naive young princess in the woods, we get something else: an adventure and romantic-comedy plot.

rapunzel makes a deal with flynn: he becomes her guide outside the castle, and she will give him back the crown he stole from the castle. and here’s where we go the route of the more modern disney films: we get unexpected accomplices, villains who turn out to be just hindrances, and a showdown with the real villain that ends with a twist on the classic ending.

pretty formulaic, right?

with this in mind, i thought i knew what i was getting into with TANGLED. i was wrong. and i am happy to admit that. because TANGLED takes your expectations and gives you something else. it may not wow everyone, but it will definitely gives a fresh take on an old story. and right now, that’s exactly what disney needs to keep children looking forward to the next disney film.

TANGLED is now showing, both in 2D and 3D, in cinemas nationwide.