The Phenomenals

I'm a sucker for film reviews, but I read them after I see the movie. Most of the time, my judgment equals theirs. They just know how to write it and point out what's wrong, while I generalize. I just know it, and I don't know how. Maybe I should take more film classes, I only had 6 units so far.

I love the Chicago Sun-Times team Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper. Ebert is like my soul mate. We almost always think the same way, he's just more brilliant. While Roeper is incredibly brutal, and I love him for that. Another one is Eleanor Gillespie of Atlanta Journal, the big momma of film reviews. She's, more often than not, right on target.

I respect these guys so much. Many people hate them - Hollywood people, independent filmmakers (though film critics give indies generally better reviews than commercials ones), and hardcorest fans. I partly draw from them here, but I will commit no plagiarism in any form, I promise.

Spidey 3 was a disappointment. I saw it in the big screen, and unfortunately!
I was seated so near the screen that I could see Tobey Maguire's pores, but the film still left me with blank spaces. High-up special effects of course, but the movie itself is down there. Two and a half words: horrible sub-plots. I only watched it because everyone raved about it. It's Spider-man, it's Spider-man! But really, it's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman. That's what it is.

300, according to Roeper (I knew Ebert won't commit this kind of mistake), is the "Citizen Kane of cinematic graphic novels." Ah-huh. It can be, but is he forgetting something? Sin City might just be as worthy. But why is it so easy to forget, unlike 300? I asked myself that when I was browsing through our pirated DVD collection. Why have I forgotten we have the treasure that is Sin City? Lemme see, maybe because 300 has been so exposed and I never heard anyone not talk about it. My uncle said, "Sobrang ganda." Alright. I agree, but not completely. And I didn't know how to justify that, until I remembered the word Gladiator. It was like déjà vu.
So anyway, director Zack Snyder created something so distant from his Dawn of the Dead remake kindergarten, and that's a good thing. He has grown into a big boy now. That's what 300 is, a big boy - still steps away from being a man. Like Gladiator is a man. And Frank Miller is so brilliant a man that there's almost nothing left to be imagined in making 300's film version.

Shrek the Third should have been entitled SHRED the Third. Really. It almost made the first two films look bad. And I'm thinking if only the makers left Shrek alone, he would still be cinema's legendary character - to be remembered by future film students even a thousand years from now. The Third is like a stupid boy named after his father, who invented an anti-global warming machine, and after his grandfather who discovered a definite cure for cancer. Somehow he has to live up to their names but fails in the end.

These have been the phenomenal titles so far, and according to trend most films that have been raved, crazed, and hailed about by many moviegoers as perfect are really so flawed. The right word for that is "overrated," which reminds me of Titanic. Let me guess, Transformers is following the trend by the looks of it. And I know you hate me now for saying that.

Tags:

Share:

5 comments