Bourne Ultimatum

JASON BOURNE COMES HOME
by Reymundo Salao

Synopsis: All he wanted was to disappear; instead, Jason Bourne is now hunted by the people who made him what he is—a legendary assassin. Having lost his memory and the one person he loved, he is undeterred by the barrage of bullets and a new generation of highly-trained killers. Bourne has only one objective: to go back to the beginning and find out who he was.

Understandably, the movie is tied with the previous two movies. It's not as if Bourne is heading off on to a new adventure. We are tackling on Bourne's issues from the previous movies that are never resolved. Sure, he took care of Project Treadstone at the first movie, sure, he took care of those who framed him & killed his girlfriend in the process in the second movie, but at the core of Bourne's crisis is his identity, which is never resolved or given finality... up till now. On the same thought, the film's consistency with the first two movies is what makes the film all the more outstanding. Such consistency makes it appear as if there was already a grand plan to make the movie a trilogy in the first place. Sometimes, it makes you feel suspicious enough to wonder if all three movies were made at the same time.


Paul Greengrass retains his shaky camera style, which may be sometimes not impressive for those who like to take a good look at the details of action scenes, but then again, the beauty of this style is that it makes the action all the more raw, intense, and realistic. Kicks and punches look more fast and more painful. Greengrass’ background in documentary filmmaking and also his background involving knowledge in the world of espionage have made his 2 Bourne movies, not only as considered among the best spy movies, but also given it legitimacy.

Like Ludlum, the film's director has delved into the shadowy world of espionage. In 1987, Greengrass coauthored—with Peter Wright, the agency's former assistant director—a personal account of a former MI5 secret-service operative. The British government's attempts to ban "Spycatcher—The Candid Autobiography of a Senior Intelligence Officer" ensured its exposure and ultimate status as an international bestseller. Greengrass' glimpse into the actual workings of the spy game gave him insight few other directors could have for Bourne's story.


Jason Bourne is the thinking man's action hero. Within the first twenty minutes of the movie, we are able to witness a very intense, very thrilling action sequence; an action sequence with no fighting, no explosions, and no destruction; It is a scene where the parties employ a cloak and dagger type of hide, search & chase scene. The Bourne movies are grounded on realism. You have the Bourne stories set against the backdrop of current events, wherein the world has already become vigilant after the events of 9-11, with espionage and anti-terrorism has become very active. And the CIA's omniscience using modern technology but within the confines of what already exists. There are also no un-realistic gadgets here. After all, as the movie establishes, spies use their own raw wits first than reach for some Bond-type gadget to help them out of a nasty situation.

Certainly, Jason Bourne has made Matt Damon the now big action superstar that he is. Before Bourne, he was unlikely to be an action hero, now he with the creators of this Bourne franchise has established the template for the ideal spy action hero, so much so that even the new James Bond movie is taking inspiration from the Bourne movies. Damon's Bourne is a man who clearly is burdened by his own past. There is a quiet agony in this hero that seeks closure on the great mystery of who he is. Damon makes us see this clearly with his impressive performance. Returning from the second movie is Joan Allen who plays CIA operative and internal investigator Pamela Landy, who did a great job in the second movie as Bourne's hunter-adversary and eventually had developed sympathy for Bourne, and she does a similarly great job with this sequel as she plays a more significant role in Bourne's quest. Also playing a significant role in Bourne’s quest is the recurring character of the former Treadstone agent Nicky Parsons who is brilliantly played by the beautiful Julia Stiles, who, like Damon gave her acting image more depth with the Bourne movies; she has proved that she is more than just a pretty face that appears in preppy romantic movies. Among the new players in Bourne’s world is CIA Deputy Director Noah Vosen, played by David Strathaim, who has been in several movies such as LA Confidential, Simon Birch, Sneakers, and Goodnight & Goodluck. Vosen heads “Black Briar”, an upgrade of Treadstone mentioned at the very last part of (part 1) Bourne Identity.

The trilogy closes with a blast, and indeed, as its tagline appropriately goes; This summer, Jason Bourne comes home. Bourne Ultimatum and the two other Bourne movies are indeed among the best spy movies ever made. Perhaps among the top five even. A rare balance of legitimate storylines and thrilling, audience-cheering action. Bourne is spy-action gold.

Harry Potter & the Order of the Phoenix

MORE THAN MEETS THE MAGIC!
By Reymundo Salao

I am not a Harry Potter fan. I've never read a Harry Potter book, numero uno: because the Harry Potter fandom kinda sickened me (specifically, the ignorant yuppies that jump into the bandwagon & claim they’re such Potter geeks too), and numero dos: I hated the first two Harry Potter movies. Now, If you think that's enough reason to make me UN-qualified to critique this new Harry Potter movie, then you are most welcome to stop reading now.

The bad news: My friends who've read the book didn’t enjoy the film. They think it was executed with a mediocre touch. The good news: I LOVED this new Harry Potter movie! It has a very engaging teen storyline about bullies, first kisses, dead parent issues, and student rebellion against autocracy


One could imagine the immense pressure it must have been for director David Yates to take on a film franchise of one of the most popular, most watched over fiction series of modern time. The slightest mistake or failure to make it excellent could upset an entire legion of fans. But Yates didn’t mess up. He simply picks up where the other directors left off and just did what he thinks is best for the franchise. He delivers without falter, nor selling out. Just like the original mood of the book by J.K. Rowling from which it is based on, Yates takes the franchise to a new level, giving it a mature and dark tone.

Don’t bring your children to this movie. No, there's no offensive violence or sexuality. But kids will definitely find this movie awfully boring. Harry Potter has crossed over from its magical surprise, and dispenses with the "Oohhs and Ahhs" of visual eye candy magic. The movie assumes the audience to think "Sure, it's magic... so what?" it doesn’t dilly-dally, and jumps to just the bare storyline. Children will give you a headache complaining how boring it is. But perhaps a more mature audience would love it.


I am told that HARRY POTTER & THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX is the longest & densest of the Harry Potter books. That may be one reason why its movie adaptation literally skips some aspects of the book and focuses on the storyline. On the downside, there are areas in the story that are confusing and not given adequate explanation. A non-Harry Potter fan like me have found myself asking questions of Who and Why to a companion who has read the book. And they tell me that indeed the movie lacked the effort for non-Potter fans to grasp the story entirely. In addition to this matter, the beginning of the movie also has a seemingly missing void in between this movie and the last one. Even though if one has watched the last movie (Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire) one may be wondering who the new characters were, or what has transpired in-between this movie and the one before it.

The one area of complaint about this movie is its lack of visual inventiveness. There was nothing visually new, but what can you expect from a franchise movie on its fourth sequel (fifth film)? I must guess that after 4 movies of Ooohhh and Aaahhh, maybe this one needed a change of pace, in which understandably, many found unexpectedly boring and devoid of balance. In my opinion, what was new was a more interesting depth in Harry's character, and in almost many of the characters. We see a vengeful Neville Longbottom, a more sympathetic Severus Snape, a more headstrong McGonagall, and a Dumbledore showing his rebellious side. Many of the important side-characters are given brief but ample time. We see Remus Lupin and Alastor Moody in tiny but unignorable roles, and Emma Thompson as Sybil Trelawney gives a short moment to shine as a pitiful teacher who has dimmed out her worth at Hogwarts. The franchise’s cast is all grown up now, the cast that used to be cute has now become a beautiful cast of young actors and actresses.


New villains are most deliciously welcome to make Potter and his friends' lives more miserable. Helena Bonham Carter's performance as Bellatrix Lestrange is truly fitting with her already insane image; her moments were brief but definitely applaudable. And of course, Imelda Staunton is precious as Dolores Umbridge as she brings to life one of the most hated villains I've seen on film for a long time. But then again, it might be due to the fact that the character of Dolores Umbridge clearly represents each and every self-righteous, autocratic teacher I’ve ever encountered. Having gone through unpleasant Elementary and High School experiences, meeting teachers like this is equal to what was actually normal.


HARRY POTTER & THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX is a refreshing tale of mystery, intrigue, and the angst of teen spirit. It may not be your eye candy Harry Potter movie filled with sparks and flashes of CGI creatures and overlong screentime for special effects. This Harry Potter chapter is more character-driven, and I loved it. I’m glad the world of Harry Potter has grown up. We would not want to be stuck in its Disney-like childish image, because the real magic is not all the sparks, but its characters.

Live Free or Diehard [DIEHARD 4.0]

DIEHARD 4.0 [LIVE FREE OR DIEHARD]
by Reymundo Salao

The first DIEHARD movie was a landmark in action movies. It makes the adult all-action movie genre bigger and more intense, filling it with all the stunts, explosions, bodycount, as well as a powerful storyline, gripping suspense, the most colorful characters, brilliant dialogues and even the funniest black humor. DIEHARD was THE perfect action film. And of course, such a feat can not be easily repeated. Yet, ever since, their efforts for the sequels have been just substantial. Part 4 may not come as close to the original one. But it sure does put up a fight to be a good enough sequel to come as close to the original.

This film is entitled “LIVE FREE OR DIEHARD” in other countries. Being a sequel, it would be expected to victimize itself with comparison to the original movie. But opposite to what sequel skeptics would always point out, Diehard 4.0 is not a mere copy of the original movie. It is, however, a good movie that utilizes the "hero vs cyber-terrorist" template used in such films as "Swordfish" and "The Net". On the other hand, the storyline of Diehard 4.0 was actually based upon a 1997 article "A Farewell to Arms" written for Wired magazine by John Carlin." The screenplay was written by Mark Bomback on this article he'd read. Composer Marco Beltrami injects some of the musical themes from the original Diehard movie, and was able to add his own formula that comfortably fits the Diehard aura. His music was okay, but not outstanding.


Looking back at the first movie, the casting has made an excellent choice picking Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy Gennaro MClane, John MClane's daughter, whose look indeed have such a resemblance to the little kid that played the same role on the first movie. Of course, Bruce Willis did a great job breathing life back to the two-decade old protagonist of this franchise. He only proves that John McClane is not too old to rock as a not-so-indestructible bad-ass hero. Maggie Q as the ass-kicking villainess Mai Lihn is stunning to look at, a walking eye candy. And Timothy Olyphant did a forgettable, yet satisfactory performance as the villain Thomas Gabriel. Outspoken (Star Wars) geek and spunky film director Kevin Smith, who directed Dogma, Jay & Silent Bob Strikes Back, Mallrats and Clerks, makes an applaudable but brief appearance as a hacker who calls himself Warlock. Justin Long who’s always played nerdy roles in movies like Dodgeball, Waiting, Herbie Fully Loaded, and Jeepers Creepers, does well as McClane's semi-partner in this movie.

The editing was flawed as some eagle-eye audiences could catch the inconsistency of the audio dialogue to the visual conversation in some of the scenes. This may be so because of the production company's last minute move to make the movie PG-13 instead of Rated R just like the previous Diehard movies. This is so the company can suck in more millions to its box-office sales. Nevertheless, the toning down of this movie's violence does not appear to ruin how good this movie is.


The movie does not run out of good humor also. There is always something to laugh at. There are a couple of semi-hidden jokes that reference to the previous Diehard movies. The mere mention of "Agent Johnson" may serve as a referential joke for Diehard diehards to laugh at. On the other hand, one may notice that there really isn’t much storyline in this movie. The storyline actually revolves around the character of the villain. The villain here is a vengeful programmer who was ignored and crucified by the government that he wanted to serve. But because this is a Diehard sequel, the focus is more on the consequences of the villain's road to vindication. In other words, the movie dispenses with going deep into the set-up story-telling and jumps into the action. After all, this is the movie that doesn’t seek to contest movies like Hotel Rwanda or Syrianna; it's a Diehard movie, dammit!

Len Wiseman is best known for directing the 2 UNDERWORLD movies. And although, his familiarity with heart-pounding action delivers the Diehard action goodies, he lacks the brilliant wit and the quirks that made the original Diehard special. I'm talking about scenes from the original like the Chinese guy stealing a candy bar before the gun slaughter, the scene with the SWAT guys clumsily being hurt by rose thorns as they "stealthily" seize the building. These are minor quirky scenes that made the original movie special because it gave each and every character personality; each and every scene mean so much. Len Wiseman delivers, even with the humor and the action in it, but merely with a satisfactory passing grade. One thumbs up would suffice.

What sets Diehard from other supermacho action movies is that John McClane bleeds. Sure, he kills all the bad guys, but he does it, number one: in a clumsy, insane way, or number two: he looks like half-dead human swiss cheese of injuries, looking like he demands to be taken to the hospital's ICU ward. You’ve gotta snicker and applaud a hero who admits he feels like a big pile of punching bag made out of crap and at the same time, cheer at himself for having annihilated all the bad guys. You cant easily turn your back to a hero as charming as that. Most especially with the subplot of John McClane for Diehards 3 and 4 where McClane's character suffers from some problematic stress and a bad divorce, it makes this protagonist more of a semi-tragic hero that gets much of fan sympathy. Everybody loves a hero who does the right thing even though he's down on the gutter and he knows that there really is no hero trophy waiting for him. Despite its minor shortcomings, Diehard 4.0 kicks ass.

TRANSFORMERS

TRANSFORMERS: MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE
by Reymundo Salao

What began more than 2 decades ago as a cartoon that marketed a line of toys, has become a phenomenal multimedia franchise and spawned an army of fans. Many of them have already grown up to become fathers of a younger generation that will eventually become transformers fans themselves. Now, that this live-action film adaptation of the TRANSFORMERS saga is out on the silver screen, the life of this franchise has become all the more immortal.

Having only minor changes from the original cartoon storyline (the original cartoon that was launched in 1984 being taken as the canon for all the Transformers storyline that was later adapted into comic books and video games), the TRANSFORMERS movie is about the war between two groups of robots from the planet Cybertron; The heroic Autobots and the treacherous Decepticons. This war erupted when the Decepticons wanted to seize control of the AllSpark, an enigmatic cube that has said to have been the source of life of the Planet Cybertron. This war has reached Earth and here, the Decepticons who have no regard for human life will kill and annihilate just to obtain the AllSpark's power, while the heroic Autobots must come and not only stop the Decepticons, but also protect humankind as well.


The movie immediately starts with an action sequence, reminding you to strap your senses on coz it really is a visual overdose trip. From the mood-setting jumpstart, the film introduces you to the nerdy teenage protagonist who comes into contact with an Autobot; Bumblebee. The story progresses with a well-balanced editing that goes back on forth from the kid's story to the goings-on in the military force that is curiously investigating a series of Decepticon attacks. And whenever the Transformers in full robot mode are revealed, I am once again that 8 year old kid who adored these robot heroes. I noticed that everybody else watching the movie was also in awe. Some may idolize the charming Bumblebee, others like me cheer an "All hail Optimus Prime" most especially in that one scene (perhaps the only scene with a serious intelligent moment) when Prime talks about the human race being a race that still needs to evolve from our primitive, self-destructive, violent nature. I.E: We humans need to grow up!

TRANSFORMERS is intense with its eye candy aspect that it will give your eyeballs diabetes. Making sure, it does not fall short with being a mere piece of eye candy, it is backed up with an excellent script, simple but effective storyline, and excellent acting. There is enough charm for the characters, producer Steven Spielberg has even managed to give the movie its Spielberg touch as the characters of the kid, Sam Witwicky makes a sort of "ET" friendship with the Autobot Bumblebee.


Michael Bay is considered a reliable director when it comes to visually stimulating movies. His movies are often overly yet unoriginally stylistic but definitely pleasing to the eyes. His visuals often show stark colors, and rarely (perhaps never) utilizes a filtered look. Everything always looks so crystal clear. His style is very much of commercial quality and does the job, staying true to his signature of being a purely eye candy "commercial" director. Always perfect for action and sci-fi movies, Michael Bay's style can mirror George Lucas' Star Wars prequels. That is why Michael Bay is perfect for a TRANSFORMERS adaptation.

Let's be honest, even though I adored the Transformers as a kid, you cannot deny that there isn’t much of a storyline to work with Transformers. Up from the start, Transformers is a big eye candy commercial for toys, and with the movies, it is now a big eye candy commercial for automobiles (notice that they’re featuring the similar brand of cars?). It's the Transformers; it's escapist fantastic fun.


This movie is perfect project for Michael Bay's style. In a Michael Bay movie, you come for the visual treat; you come to have your eyes fattened up. From dizzying stunts, to gorgeous casting, Michael Bay delivers the goods, insuring it to have its commercial success.

The minimal downsides to this project is that Michael Bay's overly stylistic style sometimes cushions and minimizes the impact of some of the film's great scenes. Many Transformer duels are denied of having a fully outstanding impact because either of Bay's "stylistic shaky" cinematography or "dizzying camera shots" often deprive the audience of seeing in its full grandeur many of the robot duels. Also a downside is the film's lack of clear storytelling, something that the visuals make you disregard. With the visuals actually turning off your brain, you will only realize that there are some unanswered questions and unclear consistency after you’ve seen the film a week later.


Purists may also be disappointed by the character designs that did not mirror the original look of the Transformer robots. I also have agreed with this opinion initially, but once the movie begins, you forget all the geek protestations about the robot designs, it doesn’t matter too much anymore whether Optimus Prime looked different from the original design. What matters is that the movie was able to turn you into a kid once again, applauding at the fun-filled adventure and the positively-buzzing action.

It was a good thing that I wasn’t able to submit the first draft of my film review for this movie last week. Because it really is the kind of movie that would have you zombified, grinning with two thumbs up, salivating to watch it again. I know I was, and it took me a week to see the two sides of the coin. If you haven’t seen this yet, you should probably jump in line, missing it will make you regret not seeing it in the silver screen. TRANSFORMERS is definitely MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE.

FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER

SIMPLY FANTASTIC, THIS RISE OF A BETTER SEQUEL
FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER
By Reymundo Salao

Reed Richards and Sue Storm are about to get married, but their plans for a normal wedding are interrupted when the Fantastic Four must face a menace that threatens Earth. The enigmatic Silver Surfer, who is the herald of Galactus, the devourer of worlds has come in order to prepare for the destruction of the Earth. Forced to have an uneasy alliance with their former nemesis Dr. Doom, the Fantastic Four must find a way to stop the destruction of the planet. But Dr. Doom has his own plans.

Known as Marvel's first family of superheroes, the Fantastic Four is best defined in the comic book genre as the most wholesome comic book series. Faithful to that concept, the movie was able to keep it just as light and wholesome but not going as low as making it too goofy and childish, just like what happened to Spider-man 3. This sequel gladly contests other Marvel adaptations that have come out this year. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer had well-balanced elements for a superhero movie. It was able to inject confrontational action scenes as well as rescue scenes at the same time. It had just the right amount of mushy romantic elements that compensated with the cheerful humor. It was even able to present a menacing villain without having to radically darken the tone of the movie. Well-balanced as it should be, the film is both simple and extravagant, mixing eye candy sci-fi action with perky humor and lively character elements. The FANTASTIC FOUR was created by writer-editor (& comic book living icon) Stan Lee and artist Jack Kirby (who is also a comic book icon) in 1961 and it has since never simmered down its mass appeal among comic book fans.


Staying true to the comic books, Fantastic Four has always been the superhero group that doesn’t delve into too much dark dramatic elements. It focuses more of either its heavily-detailed outlandish science fiction storylines or the character elements that make this superhero group more of a family than just an ordinary superhero team.

The movie manages to make its heroic characters lovable and charming. Their likable qualities make them look as if they are the "Friends" (as in TV series Friends) of the superhero genre. Ioan Gruffud as Mr. Fantastic Reed Richards still maintains his oftentimes funny nerdy character, Jessica Alba as the Invisible Woman Sue Storm balances well as his beloved partner, playing a fiancé that doesn’t resort in predictable clichéd character, Chris Evans as Johnny Storm the Human Torch shows more layers of character than his cocky boyish personality, and Michael Chiklis as Ben Grimm, The Thing, is ever so cool as the clobbering, lovable blue-eyed thing. Also returning is the character of Dr. Victor Von Doom played by Julian McMahon, who is now a scarier, more intimidating villain who always seems to be keeping something sinister hidden under his sleeve. The story introduces Silver Surfer, physically played by Doug Jones & voiced by Lawrence Fishburne. This new character was brought to life with the aid of some very impressive special effects.

Just as good as the first Fantastic Four movie (2005), this sequel is directed by the same director Tim Story. And this time, he brings forth a more exciting action-packed storyline. Having dispensed with the obligatory introduction phase on the first movie, this sequel easily jumps into action mode. And indeed this movie has superior action sequences that will definitely please its fans. So much so that thinking back about those action scenes makes me want to go watch this movie again this weekend.

Like every other big blockbuster event movie, this one has an extra scene in the middle of the credits. That means that when the end credits start rolling; don’t go straight out the theater just yet till you’ve seen that extra scene. (You can skip the next paragraph because it may have possible unintentional spoilers. Jump to the next paragraph if so)

The only tiny disappointment I have is that Galactus is not shown in this movie. Not even when his presence is felt. Perhaps it was done in order to play safe with the possibility of not having to work with a third movie. But I very much doubt that because this movie is so excellent that it is inevitable that they would surely be working on a third movie.

I think what makes it a great movie is that it strives to be just true to the content of the source material. It does not attempt to cram itself with needless action scenes. It does not venture to invest in needless romantic elements as well, neither does it try to pretentiously dilly-dally all too much on the scientific mumbo-jumbo. In other words, it does not try to be something that it is not, just to score some more ticket sales or to please a certain audience. It just goes to translate the fun and action of the Fantastic Four comic book experience on to the silver screen. Just plain and simple, take it or leave it. This simplicity makes it a movie adaptation that really works. FANTASTIC FOUR: RISE OF THE SILVER SURFER is plain action packed, family-friendly, sci-fi fun. Spectacular and simply entertaining, you do not want to miss this.

EL LABERINTO DEL FAUNO (Pan's Labyrinth)

EL LABERINTO DEL FAUNO
By Reymundo Salao

El Laberinto Del Fauno also known as Pan’s Labyrinth is set in post-Civil War Spain. Ofelia (Ivana Baquero), a young girl moves with her mother, Carmen (Ariadna Gil), into the home of Captain Vidal (Sergi López), in an abandoned mill in the middle of dark, dangerous woods. Vidal is leading his team of soldiers against resistance fighters--and he will do whatever is necessary to kill every last one of them. As Vidal bosses around the pregnant Carmen, a flying creature leads Ofelia through a garden labyrinth and into an underground cave ruled by a fawn, who believes that Ofelia might be the lost princess of this strange yet magical place. To prove she is royalty, Ofelia must complete three tasks, each more difficult and terrifying than the previous one. Meanwhile, Vidal is becoming more and more paranoid, torturing and murdering seemingly at will.

This film is Mexico's entry to the Academy Awards, in the category of Best Film in a Foreign Language (2006). In 2007, this film became one of the few fantasy films ever nominated in the Best Foreign Language Film category at the Oscars. Meanwhile, this film received 22 minutes of applause at the Cannes Film Festival. Despite the film's translated title suggesting otherwise, the character of the Fawn is not Pan. Del Toro stipulates that he felt the character of Pan was too dark and sexual a character to play in a film opposite an 8 year old girl. The film is only called 'Pan's Labyrinth' in America and the English-speaking countries; everywhere else the film is called 'The Labyrinth of the Fawn'.


This film is directed by Guillermo Del Toro, who has gained fame as a respectable director in the fantasy genre. He directed CRONOS, THE DEVIL’s BACKBONE, BLADE 2, and HELLBOY. Del Toro is famous for compiling books full of notes and drawings about his ideas before turning them into films, something he regards essential to the process. He left years worth of notes for Pan's Labyrinth in the back of a cab, and thought it was the end of the project. However, the cab driver found them and, realizing their importance, tracked him down and returned them at great personal difficulty and expense. Del Toro was convinced that this was a blessing and it made him ever more determined to complete the film. The English subtitles were translated and written by Del Toro himself. He no longer trusts translators after the results in his previous subtitled movies.

Guillermo Del Toro creates a fairy tale with dark & gritty depth. Its violent & cold-blooded scenes make it a film more targeted for adults and mature viewers. After the first week movie theaters in Mexico had to place signs over the movie posters warning about the graphic violence as parents were taking small children to see it. Nevertheless, the film is magnificent in its darkness. It makes me think of it as a more realistic, more Oscar-worthy version of Tim Burton’s work, only as a pop comparison. Del Toro even surpasses Burton in reputation now.

Del Toro exhibits his passion for the mystically bizarre and interestingly grotesque, as we are introduced to creatures and places that seem to bridge fairy tale fantasy and creature-feature horror flicks. Del Toro beautifully weaves reality and fantasy together side by side, and creates a thought-provoking masterpiece that intends to be a harrowing classic. A must-see, I give it a golden endorsement.

SPIDER-MAN 3

SPIDER-MAN 3: GREAT ENOUGH IN ITS OWN TWO FEET; BUT WEAKER BY COMPARISON
By Reymundo Salao

Spider-man returns with Sam Raimi on the directorial helm and its same main cast that includes Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, and James Franco. The story starts out with Peter Parker and Mary Jane Watson’s romantic relationship blooming despite of the challenges they face as Parker balancing his life with his crime-fighting, wall-crawling alter-ego, Spider-man. But things are complicated when Norman Osborn lunges into all-out vengeance against Spider-man. In the midst of it all, Spider-man is faced with new villains that include Flint “The Sandman” Marko, played by Thomas Haden Church and Eddie Brock, played by Topher Grace, who eventually mutates into The Venom. The film boasts a plethora of action and amazing visuals, as well as a storyline that is faithful to the comicbook source material.

Spider-man 3 was not bad. But I would be stubborn to argue that Spider-man 3 was absolutely superb, because it was not. Perhaps the first 2 films were too good to a point that Raimi used up all his discipline by the third movie.


Raimi’s signature quirkiness also found in part 1 and his other films like Army of Darkness and Darkman are ever-present. The same kind of silliness that is fit for Marvel's more lighter, more wholesome web-slinging superhero. But there are instances in this film that that quirkiness was awkwardly positioned. Minor scenes that felt like the punch-lines missed their mark.

One thing applaudable with Raimi, though, is his ability to fit in the numerous subplots into the film's limited running time. In this one, Raimi focuses on the complex relationship between Peter Parker, Spider-man, and Mary Jane Watson. This focus is in full consistency with the first two films. But this emphasis deprived Raimi of the opportunity to have a more interesting focus on the other characters. Sure, there was focus on characters like the Sandman or Venom, but the geek in me is craving for more focus on those new characters.


Fan expectations & geek nitpickings are always present in comicbook adaptation movies. What may be well-received by the general audience may not be satisfactory to the core Spider-man fanbase. I would have thought Raimi's keen sense of humor and eye for horror would be utilized to make his new villains more interesting than it was. With the introduction of Sandman, it should’ve been about time to have a Spider-man villain who's cooler in terms of character temper. Sandman is one of Spider-man's longtime villains who is adored by fans because of his sense of humor. Likewise, Thomas Haden Church is also known for his polished balance of sense of humor and a reputable acting career. But none of that humor is shown on screen; instead, we are given an overbrooding Sandman. Sure, he shines in some dramatic scenes, but please; they shouldn’t have made him too serious throughout the entire film! It's as if we're not already sick of Harry Osborn's and Eddie Brock's whining. Thomas Haden Church was PERFECT for Sandman, he's got the Sandman look and his talent is capable of giving an inside out adaptation of Sandman's character. Instead, Church's talents are wasted with the film's lack of focus on his character.


And then there was Eddie Brock who transforms into the horrifying Venom. The look of Venom was excellently brought to life. Venom is supposedly one of the creepiest villains in Spidey’s universe. A villain in which Raimi should have showcased his expertise in horror the same way he made “Evil Dead” a cult classic. Topher Grace did a fine job playing Eddie Brock, a new character who becomes a rival to Peter Parker, and eventually, to his alter-ago as well. The storyline concerning Harry Osborn, the new Green Goblin, on the other hand, was one that has got some interesting twists; James Franco was given a more radiant spotlight in this one, one that makes his character a more important role to play.

Although the action was sufficient to blow away any chances of boredom, the special effects tend to be over-used. Sandman became disappointing when they exaggeratingly turned him into an overgrown sand giant, a seemingly bastard child of the stay-puft marshmallow man from the Ghostbusters movie & Imotep from The Mummy. In addition, there were action sequences that went by too fast; they may be impressive but cinematically devoid of being appreciated.

Nevertheless, nitpickings would not totally bring this movie down. Apart from his eye for exciting action, Raimi juggles with equal doses of comedy, action and romance into this movie. Spider-man 3 is great enough in its own two feet; the only weak point it has is that it pales in comparison to the first two movies which were so good that it breaks our meters. An essential sequel to the Spider-man franchise, this movie is a must-see. And it seems that Spider-man will not rest as a trilogy. There is already news confirming a part 4.

Spider-Man explodes in several local screens 4 days advance

The highly-anticipated SPIDER-MAN 3 is opening in Philippine Cinemas today May 1, 2007. 3 days ahead of its official American release on May 4, 2007.
Locally, it will be shown in almost all local screens. SM City opens with all theaters showing the movie, while at Robinson's movieworld, it opens in 4 out of its 6 theaters.

ROBINSONS MOVIEWORLD
Spider-man 3
12:40 PM, 3:20, 6, 8:40PM
Spider-man 3
10:30 AM, 1:10 PM, 3:50, 6:30 PM
Spider-man 3
11:40 AM, 2:20, 5, 7:40 PM
Spider-man 4
1:45 PM, 4:25, 7:05 PM
Ang Cute ng Ina Mo
11:15 AM, 1:15 PM, 3:15, 5:15, 7:15 PM
Pathfinder
12:45 PM, 2:55, 5:05, 7:15 PM

SM CITY CINEMA
Spider-man 3
11:40 AM, 2:20 PM, 5, 7:40 PM
Spider-man 3
3 PM, 8:20 PM
Spider-man 3
10:20 AM, 1 PM, 3:40, 6:20, 9 PM
Spider-man 3
11 AM, 1:40 PM, 4:20, 7 PM
Spider-man 3
12:10 PM, 2:50, 5:30, 8:10 PM
Spider-man 3
10:20 AM, 1 PM, 3:40, 6:20, 9 PM
Spider-man 3
11:20 AM, 2 PM, 4:40, 7:20 PM