http://veiledmusings.wordpress.com/

I'll still be updating this one though :D

Last Monday I agreed to go to Glorietta to see 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button' with Nicole and Renz.  I've seen the theatrical teaser for this movie a couple of weeks ago, and I've got to admit, my interest was piqued.

The premise of a man being born into this world in his seventies and growing younger, instead of older, was lifted from F. Scott Fitzgerald's short story of the same title.  I've just finished reading said short story and basically I've found that aside from the concept, there were no other similarities between the two.

The treatment of the film, however, was meticulously done.  It was no doubt a feel-good-family type of movie; one, which I would’ve enjoyed watching during the holidays, had there been no foreign film ban during the Metro Manila Film Festival run.  

Brad Pitt's Benjamin Button was very much reminiscent of his Joe Black: he had the same aura of naiveté around his old-man-Benjamin.  His facial expressions made old-man-Benjamin endearing, which was a feat, considering the sheer amount of make-up and prosthetics.  I actually found myself rooting for him when he took his first step.  Alas, I found myself rolling my eyes when the Brad Pitt version of Benjamin entered the screen.  There were just too many glory shots for my taste.

Cate Blanchett as Daisy was just divine.  She brought so much class to the character it was ridiculous.  I wonder if she used contact lenses though; surely her eyes aren't that blue.  The acting was at par, of course, but it was a shame that she and Brad Pitt don't have that much chemistry.  

The supporting cast was effective in their roles. 

Jason Flemyng as Thomas Button portrayed a father who was clearly tormented by his actions.  It made me go 'aww' inside when he offered to buy Benjamin a drink.  

Taraji P. Henson's Queenie was just fantastic.  She brought so much spunk and humor into her lines that I was constantly giggling to myself whenever she was speaking.  She actually reminded me a bit of my mother, even though she doesn't speak, sound or even look like her.  

Jarred Harris' Captain Mike was a bit too stereotypical for me. I mean come on, an Irish Man who gets drunk every night and is a frequenter of brothels?  Isn't this a bit insulting?  Also, I found his demise a bit too predictable.

Oh! And this movie is so awesome that Tilda Swinton even made an appearance.  Seriously, they could not have cast a better Elizabeth Abbott.  When she unflinchingly says 'I tried to be the first woman to ever cross the English channel' you'd totally believe her because you know in your heart Tilda Swinton has the balls to do it.  

I've heard comments that this movie is very reminiscent of Forrest Gump. Well that's probably because the man who wrote the screenplay for that movie wrote the screenplay for this one as well.  Although you've got to hand it to Eric Roth for knowing how to tug at one's heartstrings.

The director for this film is very much familiar with Brad Pitt's acting method, which is a big part of the reason why this movie worked so well.  It came to me as a shock that the same David Fincher who directed Se7en and The Fight Club directed this.  Although in retrospect one can overlay the humor patterns of all movies and find very little difference, I think.

The lighting and the make up were great; I can't, for the life of me, figure out how they made Brad Pitt's skin so flawless during his supposed teen years.  I'm sure there were a ton of make up involved, but the lighting was so contrived that he actually looked like the Brad Pitt from Thelma and Louis. 

I've heard a lot of people telling me that the movie was too long.  Well two and a half hours are just sufficient for the telling of a man's life story, don't you think?  But then again maybe it was just all about the company you keep when watching movies like these; I was seated next to one of my best friends and we just could not stop squirming and making up inappropriate about the age differences between Daisy and Benjamin.

7.5/10, because it brought back the long-lost Brad Pitt fangirl in me.

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

I remember exactly the first time I ever read C. S. Lewis' fourth installment of the Narnia chronicles: I was off to spend a long weekend with the family in Tanay, Rizal, a place, although quiant, did, at the time, only had electricity and basic indoor plumbing to add to its (extremely short) list of luxuries.

The place did have, however, a hammock slung between two trees of star apples.  And I remember spending most of my time on there, reading (as much as the light and the mosquitoes allowed me to).  In a peculiar kind of way it took me way too long to finish the book, and even more peculiar, I'd forgotten many details of the story.  Don't get me wrong, I remembered how it went (with the whole series, it was impossible not to) but I've forgotten the specific details of who said which at which point in the story.  

A couple of weeks ago I finally saw the film and just remembered thinking afterwards, "what a (f*cking) wonderful way to get reacquainted with the world of Narnia, this movie".  It really was beautifully made.  And now just having finished re-reading the material (it only took a little more than a day this time, haha), I appreciate it more, all the effort and the gentle attention paid even to the most miniscule of details.

Very quickly the movie reels you in; starting off with an adrenaline-releasing sequence wherein the title lead, played by Ben Barnes, is seen galloping through breathtaking sceneries only partially hidden by the dark.  And unlike most movies that opted for the same action-packed opening sequence, this one doesn't just leave you hanging.  Even better, it does not leave you crashing either.  Artfully made, the scenes just blend into one another, making for a better landing.

And I'd have to give props to the casting directors on this one.  Did s/he know that there would be a sequel?  If s/he did, did /she somehow know that they'd all grow up like this?  They fit into the roles then, but now it seemed as though they grew (more) into it, if that even makes sense.  For child-actors, basically unknowns really, they're quite exquisite at delivering each line with staggering sincerity.

Someone please tell me how they prepared for this movie because on the book, Lewis stated something about the Pevensie children slowly transforming into their royal selves the longer they stayed in Narnia.  With these four, you could literally feel the change.  I especially loved the scene when they first saw their gifts again.  Once they were garb, holding up the bow and arrow, the cordial and the sword and the shield, there really WAS no doubt that the Kings and Queens of the Golden Age of Narnia were back.

Writers Adrew Adamson, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely fleshed out the characters through pure but credible internal conflict.  With these they particularly gave more attention to Peter and Susan (was it because of very talented agents or because they won't be in any subsequent films? hmm).

Peter didn't pick fights in the book; if anything it was Edmund who was the restless one, being very much vocal on his wanting to back to Narnia.  William Moseley's Peter had a lot of issues though: here he was in England, bored of his life and infinitely annoyed at the people he's associating with.  They didn't give him the respect he needed, him Peter the Magnificent, High King of Narnia.  And once he's back in Narnia, he is quickly consumed by his ego (he IS High King, after all) and it eats him up inside that he's not really that much help.  He knew that he was brought back for a reason and believed that he alone can come up with the solution.  His faith in Aslan (which was so strong before) was sacrificed for his pride.  

Is that teenage angst right there or what?

With Anna Popplewell's Susan the Valiant, they took liberties.  Way too much, if you ask me.  First off they created this romantic angle between her and Caspian.  I do not agree with this, chiefly because I think Lucy would've fared well better with him on the next book.  Secondly (and I agree on this one) they made Susan more involved in the war.  Given the period the book was written and set in, it was justifiable to keep the girls with Aslan and away from danger.  Women's rights and all that, you know?  Acting-wise I can say nothing bad about the performance.  She's given so many layers to Susan, even hinting at the seeds of haughtiness that will bring forth the character's downfall in the succeeding books.

Skandar Keynes as Edmund was probably my favorite, because he literally looks like he was still licking his wounds from his encounter with Jadis.  He hardly had any lines and it was ridiculous how much he conveyed through his eyes alone.  Here was a little brother who, although scared, was very much willing to help even though his older brother was being a prick and pushes him aside.  The ideal prodigal son, full-on repentance mode.

Georgie Henley reprises her role as Lucy and holy mother of pearl, I honestly didn't recognize her; she's grown so much!  I'll admit it, when the first film came out I didn't think that she was the prettiest actor out there but, wow, now she's really adorable!  It's always amazed me to see her eyes light up when she sees Aslan, almost inspiring, really.  She's held her own in this movie and I find myself looking forward to her future projects.

What probably shocked me the most in this movie were the Telmarine's accents.  Good God, never did I think that Caspian et al had accents.  In retrospect, it made sense since the Telmarines descended from pirates, after all.

Ben Barne's Prince Caspian was believable although for some reason I cannot  take him seriously after that "five more minutes" line said in the ridiculous accent.  It set the feel for the movie I suppose.  I liked that whole ego battle thing he had with Peter in the movie; it certainly wasn't in the book.  Although now, after seeing it fleshed out on screen, I can't imagine it not happening.  C. S. Lewis clearly meant this series to be all about faith and good messages, but really, he had two kings of Narnia at the same time in one place.  How could there be no conflict?

Sergi Castellito played King Miraz extremely well, in my opinion.  He was deliciously evil in it, clearly reveling in the bad-ass-ness of it all.  And let's not forget, he was the only one who truly pulled off the accent.  Also he reminds me of Snape for some reason.

It's not fair to compare a book to its movie adaptation, I know.  But in this particular case the two can be transposed for one another.  They tweaked around with the material a lot, switching character lines and everything but all in all it stayed true to the message and general feel of the story.  Whatever they added (the failed siege of Miraz’s castle, Jadis' cameo and the whole kissing event) and omitted (the Battle of Beruna, the whole Bacchus escapade and about all of Aslan's scenes) didn't hurt the film at all.

Rating: 9/10.  Because Tilda Swinton made an appearance!

PS: When I saw this film I totally wasn't on the look out for incestuous undertones, believe it or not.  But gah, if they truly were the only humans around how did they...?  Okay, never mind.  I totally blame SandraE for this.

PPS: The whole flashlight thing was actually in the book, only there it was called an 'electric lamp'.  I know; that blew me away too.

i'm a person whose wiring prevents her from going against the norm; if i see something become ridiculously popular i'm immediately wary of it, setting ridiculous standards for that "it" thing to pass.  

i know that it's not a healthy way to go about things but it really is worth it most of the time.  if that particular thing does pass said standards then i'm a pleasantly surprised happy camper (hey, that's what happened in lord of the rings trilogy).  

if people expect me to like something, chances are i'd end up hating it.  and vice versa.  if people expect me to hate something i'd usually end up liking it, with the lowered standards and all, i once again end up a pleasantly surprised happy camper that the thing didn't suck as much.  

either way i end up a happy camper when things don't go the way as planned.

that said, watching catherine hardwicke's 'twilight' had been a weird experience for me.  a couple of friends who've already seen the movie ahead of me texted, swearing to God that i'd probably end up hating it when and if i do decide to see it.  and with those harmless little words, my mind had been set to like it.  hell, by the time the house lights in the theater dimmed down, i felt that familiar rush of nervousness come in waves.

kristen stewart, who played the heroine, was perfect.  she looked the part and actually gave some level of depth to the book's two-dimensional character.  the film makers wisely left out that whole clumsiness trait, but even without the canonical flaw, stewart's bella oddly still felt human.  

robert pattinson's played edward cullen.  well, my biggest peeve was the fact that the twihards all started shrieking the moment he entered the frame.  sure, it's not his fault but gah.  okay, i get it; he's edward in the flesh, but geebus.  get a grip.  

i once read somewhere that pattinson actually had difficulty in playing this particular character, because the books lacked detail as to who exactly edward cullen was.  sure, he's gorgeous, but what else is there?  i think this particular bump showed on screen.  most of the time he looked awkward, especially when he's around bella.  i'm sure he meant to be some sort of brooding, emotionally tortured vampire, but it just came off wrong.  or maybe i was just distracted by the weird make up.  props for making the earnestness believable though, that's a hard trick to pull off.

all in all the movie gave me a feeling of disjointedness, which i found shocking.  really, one would think that a simple, direct to the point story such as twilight would've been easy enough to translate on film.  i mean, it really didn't have that much complications to work around with, i sort of expected a smoother ride. 

really, though, they only had to play up the two characters' chemistry on screen and they'd have had it made.  and clearly, pattinson and stewart have chemistry.  

strangely enough, though, when the characters were indeed speaking with each other, the said chemistry disappears.  i personally blame the dialogue; it was broken and fragmented, leaving a lot of people (who haven't read the book) go "??? what the eff are they going on about?" in the wake.  there are a lot of cheesy lines in the book, i admit, and i pity the person who holds the job of sifting through that mush pile, but really, s/he could've done a much better job.  the garble that ended up on the film made it seem like s/he just picked out all the cheesy lines and threw them inside a fish bowl and picked them out at random.

the action scenes were sort of cheesy, but hey, at least there were action scenes.  i know it's not right to compare a movie to the boook, but come on.  having BOOK!bella sleep through most of the action just seems a tad lazy to me.  

i do, however, appreciate the film makers' effort into trying to make a coherent plot out of the pathetic one they had in the book, by making it seem that the nomads were baddies who were really out for blood (and not just bella's).  also, i happen to like charlie's mustache.  he just seems more solid, both as a father and as a chief of police, with that thing on his face.  

the editing was great, they cut out all the unneeded mush and just relied on the actor's capability to relay the emotions with their facial expressions in the many montages.  and thank GOD that the whole scene with the heart monitor was scrapped; it saved me from unnecessary eye strain from too much rolling of my eyes.  unfortunately they also scraped much of the other vampires' back stories, which i found to be unfortunate, as a little background would've answered a lot of questions.  

the tight shots were effective though.  by focusing on two beautiful people's faces a lot, you somehow manage to sit through lines like "you are my life now" and "you're my own personal brand of heroine" unscathed.  

it took me a while to write this, because it takes me a while to digest emotions.  yeah, it'd been somewhat of a roller coaster ride for me because i was torn between just following that weird wiring and actually trying to make sense of what i saw.  i could've just liked it for what it was (and because people sort of expected me to hate it) but i couldn't.  

if you're going to see this movie though, do try to stay away from the pack of giggling girls in the theater; they'll surely be bound to be a cause of distraction at some point.

rating: 6.0/10 because it lacked SPARKLE!