The Terminator is back!

But instead of machines form the future going back to the present day, Terminator Salvation is set on the bleak future, where the machines have taken over the world, and the human rebellion are fighting tooth and nail for survival. Christian Bale plays John Connor, the spiritual leader of the human resistance.

The film is action-packed, as with most movies helmed by McG-- the special effects are top-notch, there are sequences where the camera perspective will put audiences in a thrilling ride, and even a certain terminator we are familiar with makes a cameo. (let's call him Ah-huld).

If you take Terminator Salvation by itself, it's a very good summer movie. But what hurts it is its need to tie everything the previous three Terminator movies together and fails to clearly answer some key questions. This will definitely confuse folks who have not watched the previous films.

As I've said, Terminator Salvation is an excellent sci-fi film, but be ready to be disoriented a bit. The film starts on a new thread on the Terminator mythology, much lie what a rest button does to a machine.


Rating: 3.5/5


Technorati: Terminator Salvation

After watching Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian, I thought I heard a big thud. When I checked, it was the film’s huge drop-off from its enjoyable predecessor.

To be honest, you can liken the this sequel's drop-off to Men In Black 2’s tremendous slide from the first Men In Black film.

What happened to Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian?

The film was supposed to be more interesting, since the backdrop is now the Smithsonian Institute, the world’s largest museum. There were definitely more historical and larger-than-life characters, but the absurdity of the plot and the rather shallow story eventually gets in the way. The lightweight quality of this film made this a snooze-fest for me.Heck, most of the jokes were derivatives of gags from the first film.

Ben Stiller seemed like he held back on the comedy and focused more on being the “accidental hero” once again. Amy Adams is a delight as always, and the rest of the cast (with the exception of Hank Azaria) were forgettable.

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian makes for decent family entertainment, only is you leave your inclination for logic and consistency outside the movie theatre.


Rating: 1.5/5


Technorati: Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian

A few years ago, I read Dan Brown's Angels & Demons after finishing The Da Vinci Code, and my evaluation back then was that I found Angels & Demons better than it's sequel.

A couple of days age, I watched the film adaptation of Angels & Demons and my assessment is that it's a much better film better than its prequel, The Da Vinci Code.


If that just sounded confusing, don't worry: I'm just channeling my inner Dan Brown. :P


Anyways, Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon is back in a movie that surely will get the attention of the Catholic church, but this time, he spends most of the film deciphering clues about the secret society Illuminati and tracking down a murderer in Rome (as opposed to raising issues questions about Jesus Christ and the Holy Grail). This thriller is much tighter than its predecessor and the mix of Renaissance-old intrigue and going around the Vatican make for good entertainment.

However, I found the movie a bit too long (I really felt all, and I think there was something lost in the adaptation of the because I remember the story of Angels & Demons much more compelling when I read it. Also, take the "facts" presented with a grain of salt, because 1) there are a lot of inaccuracies and 2) this is a work of fiction.

But nonetheless, Ron Howard's Angels & Demons is a gripping thriller that may be the best grown-up entertainment this summer movie season.


Rating: 3.5/5


Technorati: Angels & Demons

I gotta be honest here: I was never really a Star Trek fan.

To wit: I've never watched any of the previous Star Trek movies, I've never really enjoyed the USS Enterprise adventures, I've never participated in the whole Kirk-Picard debate, and I've always thought that Star Wars was better.

But after watching the J.J. Abrams version of Star Trek, I'm ready to boldly go where I've never gone before.

This film is such a slick, and action-packed update that I think it's a good study for making sci-fi material into box-office gems. I think the movie has a great amount of exhilarating sequences, the right amount of humor, and, of course, space scenes that would make fanboys sigh. I also like how the film was able to integrate the 1960's look, from the clothes to the technology design (notice the ships' designs)

As far as the ensemble cast goes, I found Zachary Quinto's Spock much, much more interesting than Chris Pine's James T. Kirk. The rest were given ample attention, but the ones that stood out were McCoy (Karl Urban), Uhura (Zoe Saldana),  Sulu (John Cho), and Scotty (Simon Pegg).

There's really not much to dislike about this version of Star Trek. If this latest version of the franchise is the new start of the film franchise, Star Trek will live long and prosper.


Rating: 5/5


Technorati: Star Trek

In an age of mashups and remixes, Ghosts of Girlfriends Past offers an intriguing variation: A Christmas Carol, The Rom-Com Edition.

Matthew McConaughey stars as Connor Mead, a relationship-phobic playboy who attends his little brother's wedding. The not-so-surprising catch is that Connor sees nuptials the way Scrooge views Christmas. Connor's cynical view of relationships and desire to stop his brother's wedding mystically summons the ghost of his uncle Wayne Mead (played by Michael Douglas). In order to correct the error of Connor's ways, Wayne arranges three ghosts (which represents the past, present & future) to visit Connor. And from there, you already have an idea what would happen.

The film is decent escapist fare, but the problems with Ghosts of Girlfriends Past start with the lack of sparks between McConaughey and his leading lady Jennifer Garner, and the lack of originality. There's really no twists, no surprises. There's the requisite mushiness, but it fails to carry the movie.

It's too bad that remixes like Ghosts of Girlfriends Past fail to recognize the idea behind remixes-- something fresh should spring from the new derivative.


Rating: 2/5



Technorati: Ghosts of Girlfriends Past

Technorati: Häagen-Dazs

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is that kind of movie that puts me in a weird spot when I blog my movie reviews. I've been a big fan of the X-Men comic books since I was 12 (although I'm not that high on Wolverine), and I find it hard to separate the fanboy perspective from the movie fan/geek perspective. But I'll do my best. :P

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a prequel to the X-Men trilogy and (as the title indicates) focuses on how Wolverine became the indestructible brawler everybody loves. Hugh Jackman reprises his role as Logan/Wolverine and he gives the role credence, thanks to six adamantium claws. But his performance couldn't save a so-so story.

Take the archetype of  the "fierce warrior with a heart," which Wolverine fits the template, and add to that how the stereotypical "soldier who retired but was dragged back into the war" shtick molds the story, then you have film cliche. But what I found enjoyable about the film the super-powered battles and action. I also found interesting characters (from the mutants to the mercenaries like Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool) and seeing them bounce around the film with their powers appealed it my fanboy side.

With X-Men Origins: Wolverine, I realized how Wolverine could be a cornerstone of a the X-Men film franchise, given better material. But this film is an OK start. Just a quick note: There are many deviations from the comic book versions so be warned!


Rating: 3/5


Technorati: X-Men Origins: Wolverine