Despite of its misfortune due to the unfortunate death of its leading man, the film was, for me, holds surprisingly well. Sure, some of the early parts were a bit dragging but I think that is more because of the aforementioned incident, thus netting less materials for Terry Gilliam to work with. Once the film caught with its latter half, the film grows, with exceptional efforts by Jhonny Depp, and Jude Law, and to some extent, Colin Farrell in partaking the role left by the venerable late Heath Ledger.

This film is another take on dealing with the Devil goes sour. Dr.Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) made a bet with the Devil, Mr.Nick (Tom Waits) that whoever gets five souls first, had a claim for Dr.Parnassus’ own daughter, Valentina (Lily Cole). Dr.Parnassus was in part of and probably the owner of a traveling theater company. He employs a mirror in which people was able to get through and take a peek on Dr.Parnassus’ “imaginarium.” Here, the person who enters it gets a choice, either taking the offer from Mr.Nick and scored one for the devil, or taking the offer from Dr.Parnassus and scored one for the old man.

There’s no denying in the fact that the film felt a bit incomplete. Although to be fair, the way the film rewritten and edited to accommodate the untimely death of Heath Ledger, was sufficient enough that in case there’s someone in the audience who was yet unaware of the said news (gasp), she wouldn’t notice the gap. The way the film treats the sudden change of the character played by Heath Ledger was seamless enough. I’d say it’s a great job by Terry Gilliam to circumvent the misfortune he was having.

The ‘imaginarium’ part which occupies most of the latter half of the film was pleasant and superior to its first half. I was excited and there’s a sense of urgency emanating from the screen whenever the off-beat CGI and colors were dancing in the world behind the mirror. This is perhaps atypical Gilliam films to which I’m not entirely familiar and won’t consider myself as a fan. Choosing the simple world to describe it was, perhaps, a frantic carnival. That’s what I felt during the latter half and it was a good thing, really. However, the first half of the film was a bit overlong and on some events I felt no urgency from the pace which I’m quite sure, had Gilliam had more materials with Heath Ledger, it would be left on the cutting floor.

Jhonny Depp and Jude Law gave their best on channeling their respective antics in place of Ledger in the world beyond the mirror. I don’t know about you, but I’ve grown a bit weary with Depp’s swagger that almost all the time reminds me of his role as a certain captain. In that respect, Jude Law’s really shines on his scene beyond the mirror. However, Colin Farrell was fell a bit short. Well, I’d say he just really doesn’t cut it to be as crazy as the script requires him to be. On the other side of the mirror, Christopher Plummer is amazing. Somebody should give him a more challenging role in which he could really really shines. And Lily Cole, the heart shaped face lady, all I could say of her was, mmhh mmhh, I’m taking a note on her future roles, that’s for sure.

My rating: *** / **** Going through the first half might prove a challenge, but the latter half was, for me, making up a lot of ground for it. Surprisingly solid film, considering that its leading man was left perished in the middle of filming.

Despite all of its beautiful design, creatures, and perhaps a little peek into the rich, and supposedly gloomy imagination of Tim Burton, I was, in overall, underwhelmed by the film. It was more a Disney film than a Burton film, and its strong casts were mostly bland and forgettable.

Alice returned to the Wonderland and reunites with her childhood’s friends and foes. I’m not sure how many parts from the original work were altered in the film, for I’m not entirely familiar with the book. Even so, I’m quite certain that this film is somewhat a sequel from the original. It was Alice, almost in her twenties, back again through the rabbit hole to Wonderland, suggesting she had visited it before, and sides with White Queen to confront and dethrone the evil Red Queen.

The film is beautiful and vibrant with colors. But not most of the time. Despite of me saying that this film is more a Disney film than a Burton film, it’s still a Burton film, and sometimes the gloomy colors that was typical of his seeps through and when it does, it’s rather inevitable to ask whether we’re truly in Wonderland or that the title should be changed into a Gloomland instead.

Not that film wasn’t fun, or a terrible one. Cheshire Cat is far less formidable than it was in the trailer, and well, basically because I *love* cats, I often missed his dismissal off the screen. Anne Hathaway is pleasant to watch, and her contradictory gestures inviting a heartily laugh from yours truly here. At least she was having fun. But mostly, that was it. Sometime during the film, I felt an inexplicable boredom, the Red Queen doesn’t strikes me as extraordinary, and so was the rest of casts that were seemingly come and goes like a wind. And finally, I found that Jhonny Depp is rather disappointing for he merely channels whatever energy he has left from Capt. Sparrow’s persona. In that sense, despite his good efforts, this role of his wasn’t going into my history book as one of his better or memorable performances. Nor was this, his seventh collaboration with Tim Burton.

But, my main problem, and of why I’m not enjoying this film as much as I had expected to, is the title character herself. Alice as portrayed by Mia Wasikowska. Oh, she’s beautiful, easy on the eyes my mother used to say, but she’s just not convincing enough for me and times when she was mulling over her choice, or leading the scene? That’s when my boredom usually starts to strike me off guard. All in all, the film was an okay one, I’d say hardly anyone going to be wowed by its technical aspects. Well, at least not going to be anywhere near a level where Avatar was last year. And, bear in mind that the 3D stuffs were only applied afterward. So, it might not worth the money you spent to enjoy this film in 3D. Especially if you’re like me, thinking that 3D is not going to change the fundamentals of film making, at least yet, and more of a gimmick than a feature.

My rating: ** / **** I’m enjoying Cheshire Cat, and the White Queen. They both have a limited screen time, but they steal the scene every time.

Disregarding the fact that this film is the fourth collaboration between Martin Scorcese and Leonardo DiCaprio, “Shutter Island” is flat out, your usual thriller film. Sometimes it fails, when the script tried to pack all the valuable informations into one scene, but mostly, it’s solid, beautiful, vivid and engaging enough to watch. Sure, it was made easier by the assembly of powerhouse casts that made this film. However, I was quite hard-pressed to acknowledge the grandeur that usually comes with Scorcese’s flick. It was mediocre by his standard. While this is yet, a slightly above average film, I wouldn’t praise it as one of Scorcese-DiCaprio’s best efforts. Alas, against the other films based on Dennis Lehane’s novels (Mystic River, Gone Baby Gone), I found that this film was less fulfilling than the others.

Shutter Island is a mental correctional facility for the insane criminals. The only point on and off of the island is through a ferry. However, at one night, a female prisoner/patient, Rachel Solando, was nowhere to be found. U.S. Marshals Teddy Daniels (DiCaprio) and his newly appointed partner, Chuck (Mark Ruffalo) were sent to investigate. With the help (or the lack of) from the facility’s staffs, orderlies, apparently led by one Dr.Cawley (Ben Kingsley), the Marshals soon found themselves in a case that more than just a simple case of missing person, but goes almost as far as a certain conspiracy theory. On the other hand, Teddy, also has to battle his own monsters. His recently deceased wife (Michele Williams) at the hand of an arsonist, and his violent past as the member of the army that freed one of the Nazi’s concentration camp in Dachau.

To go beyond the above paragraph to describe the film would violate any enjoyment that you might had by watching the film unspoiled. But, tell you what, the mystery in this film is I think, far more subtle than it was in the book. For instance, the codes that Teddy found was only two lines in the film. Now I’ve read the book, and it actually worked in my advantage because I don’t really care about the mystery that Teddy and his partner had tried to solve because I already have a full knowledge about it. Therefore, I had stopped questioning about it and rather, soak in the visuals as they’re represented in the screen. Those little details when a character made an unmentioned mental note toward other characters, to which described a bit more in the book? They are a pleasure to watch and those nightmare sequences? They are amazing. It definitely beats any imagination I had when I read the book.

All in all, this film is actually nothing more than a well-made thriller with a piece of puzzle that will *not* make you brag had you guessed about it but not too easy to make you lost interest. In fact, I’m willing to bet that most of you had a pretty good idea on how things going to end way before the film ends. In that respect, the film’s finale is going to explains all the “whys” without ever relegating into a leeway logic and without giving you the sense that the film had cheated on you which is most of the time, is what differentiates between a solid thriller and a disastrously terrible one. Plus, with a solid cast led by DiCaprio whom I think, is getting better and better at Scorcese’s deft hand (from a man within the shadow of Day-Lewis in Gangs of New York to a solid leading man in The Departed and this film? Oh, he’s getting better, alright), Ben Kingsley, Mark Ruffalo, Michelle Williams, and my personal favorite supporting cast in this film, Jackie Earle Haley, this is a film that amidst the relative calm of February film climate stood out as one to made a comment to during your coffee break at the office. And that hint on the character’s choice at the end of the film? It’s beautiful. I love it.

My rating: *** / **** It’s not Scorcese’s best, but even if it wasn’t his best, it still came out as a solid thriller with a solid cast. Again, Scorcese bought the best out of DiCaprio. However, as one of the interblag’s reviewer had said, DiCaprio has yet bought the best out of Scorcese. And I have to agree on that one.

I was stunned when the film won Best Screenplay at the Golden Globes and even if I *still* thought that “Inglourious Basterds” has a better screenplay, I’d say the win wasn’t without merit. At the very least, I didn’t held any grudges against its victory. After all, with merely a self-taught education, I still need someone to teach me on Screenplay 101.

“Up In the Air” follows a man, a layoff officer, Ryan Bingham (George Clooney). His nature of works required him to travel from city to city most of the time. Three hundred and twenty two days in a year. Between his job, which is to deliver the bad, and depressing news of termination, he speaks at conferences, promoting his choice of life style, best summed up as “avoiding commitments”-life style. During the course of the film, we follow him as he made acquaintances with fellow frequent-flier, a siren by the name of Alex (Vera Farmiga) and an apprentice, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick). As you would’ve expected, these two relationships questioned and threatened the life Ryan has chosen.

I have often complained about the lack of strong, prominent female characters in screen nowadays. Most of the time I saw them only in passing, subjected to whatever the film wants her to be (mostly with sexual intention) which annoys me to no end. This film however, is one of the few that I remembered recently that features not one, but two strong female characters. I’d go as far as saying that this film’s main strength lies in its two female characters and I’m absolutely loving it when one of them is one screen and yearning for them to return when they’re absent.

Vera Farmiga is a stunner. She slides into her role as a siren with comfort. Sexy, but ever classy, and never cheap. Her sexual chemistry with Clooney’s character is for lack of better word, is fun to watch. Anna Kendrick is surprisingly solid as Natalie. Naive, full of dreams, and yet, we saw her dreams crumbles and she delivers the agony with confidence. Their tight-scripted dialogue is one of the best scene in the film, if not the best itself. Now, I’m not saying that George Clooney is terrible. Far from it. He naturally leads the film and his charisma, intelligence, and wit made it easy to sympathize with him almost all the way. In short, he just doing what he did best. Being Clooney. It is a reminder that Clooney is still one of those few actors whose every film is worth to be seen.

The way the film goes, it sometimes invite the viewers to assume that it is one of those romcom films, I mean, the ingredients were there. But, the film clearly doesn’t want to go there, and although the invitation was looming threateningly, it never actually arrives. Jason Reitman’s deft direction made sure of it. Teasing, but never falls into that territory I’ve come to dreaded in the recent years. The way the film ended, though it may not the ending you want it to be, was, in my opinion, perfect.

My rating: ***1/2 / **** Doubtless. One of the best 2009 film that I’ve seen. Strong female characters, deft handling in pace and direction, although I could go better with less music but hey, it Reitman’s and enjoyable scripts. Best Screenplay? I’d still go with “Inglourious Basterds.” Fortunately, they will compete in different category (Adapted against Original) at the next Academy Awards.

Critics panned this film and while the film isn’t perfect and its constant “boo” moments are bordering to tiring, I love this film for what its worth. It’s a period piece, a well executed one at that, and solid one-dimensional performances by their actors. At least they didn’t look bored.

Do I need to explain the origin of werewolves? Of how they transformed during the Autumn full moon? Of how they are vulnerable to bullets cast in silver? Exposed enough to the world of fiction, I don’t have to. However, given that you’re miserable enough to not know such myth, the film gave you an origin. In one single take.

It was Blackmoor, England, 19th century. Everything I had imagined from England in that period from many fictions I had read. Grey, devoid of colors, bleak, wet, and miserable. The Talbots is perhaps one of the wealthiest family in the city. Anthony Hopkins is the father, John, Benicio Del Toro is the elder son, Lawrence, Simon Merrels is the younger son, Ben and Emily Blunt is Ben’s fiancee, Gwen Conliffe. Lawrence is a theater artist. A traumatic experience from his childhood has left him disconnected with his family until Gwen wrote him a letter informing that his younger brother has been missing. Upon returning to Blackmoor, Lawrence discovers that Ben was savagely murdered. Wanting to solve the mystery, Lawrence soon involved in a nightmare, an acquaintance with his own personal nightmare from his childhood, and the truth about the Talbots.

For me, the film’s attempt to set the mood worked well. I had no complaints whatsoever on the setting. In fact, and this may have attributed to what may’ve clouded my judgement, I love it. The high hat, the creepy mansion, the street with its residents, even the woods, worked in my favor.

Even so, and perhaps what had made critics panned this film so badly, the film was too relentless in pacing and cares about one thing and one thing only. The werewolves. The flirting romance is all but existent, the grander theme that explores the relationship between father and son and the son’s particular dealing with his traumatic experience was merely a scratch on the surface. The film was only interested in shocked its audiences by showing as much gore as it is permitted, and surprised its audiences with a sudden movement that almost always accompanied by a loud “boo.” Of course, it grows old rather quickly and it boils down, finally, to a monster vs monster showdown.

Like I’ve said, the actors were solid, given that they only portrayed a one-dimensional character only. Del Toro rarely ventures into a territory other than his droopy-eyed and gaunt expression. Hopkins just there to deliver his accents, and Blunt was as usual damsel in distress, and hopelessly in love. Hugo Weaving was a nice relief actually, probably the only good impression performance-wise I’ve had from the film. Other than that, the film’s main strength for me, is its production values. Detailed, well done, and its cinematography perfectly sets the mood. Again, I repeat, grey, devoid of colors, bleak, wet, and miserable.

My rating: **1/2 / **** Too many “boo” moments to my liking. It grows old very quickly. However, the film has enough quality in its production value and has a relentless pacing enough to draw me away from the overall quality of the film. It was more gore than creepy, and more loud than scary.

I learned a new vocabulary. Character mosaic. This film is a such. A parade of characters, sometimes merely elicit “guess that actor/actress” game response, it was a yet another attempt to cash in the one-dimensional love stories intertwined to a single city (Los Angeles) and a theme (Valentine’s Day). Change its location to New York, omit the theme, add some art house core material, and you’ve got yourself a lesser version of “New York, I Love You.”

How do we know that today is a February 14th in the film? Easy, just have everyone says it was the the busiest day of the year if you worked at a florist shop, have someone insecure enough to felt threatened by her loneliness that she had an annual “I Hate Valentine’s Day” dinner, and plenty of couples from all ages mooned over what to do or what to achieve during that ’special’ moment. I’d say that the film has everything. Whether it is up your alley or not, I can’t tell. I guess, if you’re a newly couple looking for ways to sweeten and strengthen your relationship, this film might work. On the other hand, I, a designated skeptic and *never* celebrates Valentine’s day, with a sole exception from Bradley Cooper/Julia Roberts, saw nothing new with the rest of the film.

A sole story, the core story that has the most portion of this film is Ashton Kutcher/Jennifer Garner/Jessica Alba/Patrick Dempsey quadrangle love. The rest of the stories somehow entwined with this story in one way or another. This core story is actually not so bad. Of course, it was predictable. Everything was in this film, and millions other love stories. Duh. I was pleasantly surprised that Kutcher downplays most of his antics and deliver an okay performance (which for me, it’s an achievement for him ), Alba is getting worse and worse with every film. Pity, I love her eyes and Garner is probably just there for the bill. She is good, though. The rest of the cast is ranging from utterly unimportant, laughable, and downright horrible (yes, I’m looking at you, Taylor Lautner/Taylor Swift) even if one of them could elicit a gasp from the teenage girl audiences by simply showing his physical asset, — well, I guess the decision to attract the demography by putting him in front right at the heels of that other film when he was a werewolf had paid off — to an enjoyable, and an okay performance. Garner, Kutcher, and more importantly, Roberts and Cooper fall within this category. Unfortunately, there’s a tendency that the performances were closer to a worse end than the other. Mostly were forgettable.

Inevitably, the film will draw a comparison with “Love Actually.” Now, I cannot say whether this film has a bigger heart than the other or otherwise. But, if I would make a comparison, I would judge the films from their respective wrapping-up scene. In the end, I remembered more from “Love Actually” even if I had seen the film years prior. I guess in that respect, I had a certain preference toward it than this film. Even so, I had a glassy eyes during Julia Roberts’ end scene. And, that’s it. Otherwise, the celebration was naught.

My rating: ** / **** All you expected from a character mosaic film. Having more recognizable faces means having a bigger assurance that at least one or two of them would worked well despite the limited time. Kudos to Cooper for being able to catch up with Roberts in her game. I’d say that the film would worked better for a newly couple (emphasis on new) looking for ways to celebrate Valentine’s Day (given they’re celebrating, that is) at the movies. The lack of alternatives helped. A lot.

P.S. My heart skips a beat when Anne Hathaway opens her apartment door. My very definition of a Goddess.

It was yet another attempt to elicit emotional response about discrimination against race and religion. In particular, this film deals with our favorite incident that has left a permanent scar in the history and changed the way we live our life. Especially, if you happen to be a Moslem living in the U.S. I was of course, talking about the 9-11. Though I hadn’t seen that many of their works, this film was Shahrukh Khan’s and Kajol’s best efforts. However, the film was overlong, too preachy, and disintegrated almost completely during the third act.

Shahrukh Khan is Rizvan Khan. An Indian immigrant in the U.S. He has an Asperger’s syndrome, and he was a Moslem. First time we saw him, it was a typical Moslem experience in the U.S. Security Airport. Thorough, and uncompromising body search. We learn right away that Khan is on his way to meet the POTUS and deliver a message. That his name is Khan and he is not a terrorist. He wrote about his experience in his journal and narrated his story that brings us back to his childhood in India and his colorful life up to the point where he took his journey.

The film, as evident as in many other Indian films, take a leisure to progress. It ran a solid 166 minutes with one intermission in between. For me, the film gave me a two very distinct experiences before and after intermission. It started nicely, and has a solid built-up, until it, like I said, earlier, disintegrated almost completely. Ironically, the film’s flood scene is probably the most responsible scene that caused this film to drown in such a fashion.

The film spent an enormous effort during the first half to built the characters and their respective interaction that became the foundation of an emotional clash that prompt our hero to take his journey. It is clear that the film wants its audience to like Khan and to root for him and his well being and, even if some questionable flaws were apparent (i.e. wasn’t the color orange and yellow falls within the same range spectrum?) to some extent, it worked. Khan delivers as Rizvan Khan. He is likable enough without portraying his case of Asperger’s syndrome, which is like an icing on the cake, an extra layer of saccharine to break the last defense of the most skeptic audience. I’m willing to bet, unless you’re not paying attention during the built-up, you’re ended up going to like Rizvan Khan and wishes nothing but to romantically involved with the woman of his choice, as played by Kajol.

Leisurely, the film came to its height when finally we learned the exact nature of Rizvan Khan’s journey to meet the POTUS. It was I think, the moment when Kajol really shines. I love that scene. Unfortunately, the film went downhill from there. The totally unnecessary Wilhelmina, Georgia scenes are rubbish at its best, and ruins everything that has been built. The scenes were meant to show how compassionate Rizvan is as a Moslem even if he has been undergone a non-fair treatment by many around him. But, there are limits to anything, and the scenes were boldly (and stupidly) break everything by putting almost anything to make sure we get the message. Okay, okay, we get the message, just sent it to an end, already. Again, unfortunately, the dealing with Wilhelmina takes almost an entire final scene of the film. It left a sour after taste in my mouth.

My rating: * / **** A pity actually, the third act of this film is overlong, meant as a tear jerker, and way way WAY too preachy for my taste. I’m usually a crier in the film (heck, I’ve got a glassy eyes during “Valentine’s Day”), but no, the film’s third act kept me at a distance and shaking my head. If you asked me, the third act is a complete disaster, just like an unintended cough that crumples the whole house of cards that has been meticulously and carefully crafted during the fist half.

This is a case of a purist nightmare. However, even if I hadn’t considered the original material, the film is still a flat, uninteresting, shallow, inconsistent, with a huge disappointment on the post-production. The huge potential of the Greek mythology that *supposedly* surrounds the tale was reduced into a merely backdrop in the passing for a leeway to a methodical teen-centered adventure slash romance. I, honestly, didn’t see any potential franchise in it. On the other hand, if I had considered the original material, it’s a total disaster. Thus, my term, a purist nightmare. This review, unless mentioned, deals with the film with a complete disregard on the book.

Percy Jackson (doesn’t care about who is the actor behind) is the son of the Greek god Poseidon. He was accused by Zeus of stealing his lightning bolt, and he put a deadline for Percy (who didn’t aware of the true nature of his origin) to deliver the bolt by midnight at Summer’s solstice. This accusation attracts monsters from the greek mythology to try to obtain the bolt for their own benefits. Now, it is up to Percy to clear his name and probably deliver the bolt to Zeus in order to prevent an all out war between the Gods and oh, picking up mommy from the clutch of Hades while he’s at it.

Arguably, the elements on this film are in the similar vein with Harry Potter. And because Chris Columbus also directed the first two Harry Potter’s films, it’s kinda natural to made a reference to it. Percy was troubled at home, and although he’s still got his mom on his side (whereas Harry doesn’t have anyone on his), he complains that it was miserable. I’m not convinced though. And then the revelation as Percy learned his true nature and went to a place where pure human cannot enter. And then the made-up quest with a motivation that felt far less than it should’ve been to make it at least believable. My overall verdict on Percy’s character that he is this good looking boy, with a short attention span and emotional spectrum that put whatever he was doing or whatever he was saying is as exciting as hearing the welcoming machine girl voice whenever you tried to call your cell’s customer service. Skip. Skip. Skip. I mean, come on, you just went through an emotional coaster ride in one night and the best you could do to express your feeling is by mooning over a complete stranger, big breasted, red head girl who happens to be Athena’s daughter? Yeah, whatever.

The quest itself, while most would find it entertaining (I heard a couple of laughter, gasp on occasions, which is a good thing if you count yourself among the masses), from the get go I was indifferent and the road was ever downhill from there on. When Percy decides to started his quests, his designated “best-friend” immediately went up his alley. Sure, he was best friend and all, but I’d say you need a far stronger reason to risk your life and went confronting the God of Underworld himself. In the book, his reason was far far more plausible and it’s not *just* because he was a best-friend. But, okay, it was passable, I’d let it slide. However, his designated “girl-friend” is an another matter entirely. She was tagging along right away, breaking the rules, even if she just kinda met this handsome (not) kid a few hours earlier. Now, no matter how hard I tried, I just can’t let this slipped away into the “passable” territory. I found it utterly ridiculous. Now, in the book, she has far more noble reasons, ones that involves the Oracle (completely left out from the film) and *not* because she just “want to went outside” as in the film. These two companions of his are completely useless, anyway. They were there merely to cheer and to utter a few lines to whatever heroic things that Percy were doing.

This passage made a reference to the book. It should be noted that the main title of this film as seen in the opening credit was “Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief.” The original title for the book was “Percy Jackson and the Olympians: The Lightning Thief.” The book was rich with Greek mythology references. I was excited when I read the book for I had an enough curiosity to the myth. Therefore, I went into the film with a higher hope than I should’ve. However, like I’ve said earlier, the film was almost bare with the myth references. From the half-blood hill, the Olympus, and the quest itself, it was nothing if compared to the book. It was a huge huge disappointment for me and I’d bet that everyone who had read the book will have the similar feeling. Now, you could argue that the book *always* triumph over film. That’s true. Alas, at the very least, you’d have a courtesy to set it properly. From my point of view, too much elements from the book were left out. Worse, there’s this one thing (regarding the fate of God’s children) that was told in a totally opposite way than it was in the book and this one thing, in my opinion, is one of the fiercest element in the saga. To opt it out is, well, shown that whoever green lighted this project desired a much much safer road (read: a freckled teen-friendly romance with a bit of adventure).

All in all, this film is just an excuse for Percy, to moon over Annabeth (the daughter of Athena) in the form of a quest. Terrible cardboard acting, mediocre set, not-so-exciting cgi, and what a waste of talents by Uma Thurman and Rosario Dawson. In one scene, Rosario Dawson rolled her eyes which is exactly what I felt about this film in its entirety. It was absolutely teen-oriented film. If you enjoyed this film, then I had to say that either you’re a teen (or thinks that you’re a teen) or you had a very very bad taste. In both case, you need to stay away from me.

My rating: 1/2 / **** The film will have an audience. I have no doubt about it. But I just don’t like it. Worse, I’ve read the book. If you’re looking for a quick fix of a Greek mythology, you’re going to be sorely disappointed.

Spoiler Alert. In the film, the quest (as far as Percy is concerned) was originally to save Percy’s mother from Hades. However, midway in the film, the adventurer were suddenly worried about the Zeus’ deadline on bringing his lightning bolt back. As far as I know, no mention on the lightning bolt being stolen by Hades nor any suspicion was directed unto him. If I hadn’t known better, *all* of the characters unanimously agreed that Hades stole the lightning bolt even if there are *no* evidences presented that suggest the possibility. That was an ultra, gargantuan, huge plot hole for me. Fail on every account.

In my book, Donnie Yen is the most underrated actor slash martial artist working today. I mean, for me, he is more badass than Jet Li in his prime and his gaunt figure and face complexion made it easy for him to play the role of a wounded hero. Even so, “14 Blades” is a mess. It was too stylish, too over-the-top in dramatization, with uninteresting characters, even bordering to ridiculous for some.

Qing Long (Yen) is the leader of a fierce group of assassin’s that acted under the King. Their loyalties were for the King only and they did whatever the King told them to do. Even killing. Well, especially killing. The film’s first minutes (or I’d say chapter) solely dedicated to provide a backdrop story to this film. If you plan to see this film, pay attention to it because most of what is going to happen in this film, the main story of this film, was depicted during this time. In short, the film was a typical wuxia. Betrayal, greed for power, Stockholm syndrome romance, and lots of duels.

From the first chapter, I had a rather bad vibe from the film. In my opinion, the first chapter was too dense, and too much is happening. This, in turn, had left the rest of the film dragged its tail lazily. Merely a vehicle for a duel after another, for the blossoming of said Stockholm syndrome, for caricature characters to made their respective appearances for of course, a yet another duel. In between, this film, as perhaps often seen in the similar wuxia films, filled its dialog with life lessons. Specific for this one, the lesson mostly consists of choices and its various derivatives.

Donnie Yen is at his usual gaunt self. Mostly drawn to himself, it is fairly clear that Donnie Yen’s best roles are the ones that more or less the variation of this very kind of character. So I’ve got no complaint on him, really. The rest of the casts however, are considerably in a lesser quality plus, Daniel Lee’s method of picture taking is kinda monotonous. It doesn’t take a very long time for me to notice his preference of taking picture of his characters and even if it was meant to gave a dramatic effect and vibe, it grows old real quick. Oh, and that flashback stuffs? Boring.

Production wise, this film is well done. Great costumes, great settings, which more than several occasions gave a strong vibe of Western films which in my book, is never a bad thing. Even so, overall, it doesn’t gave enough distractions for me to notice its many pit falls and short comings.

My rating: * / **** The dense first chapter of the film promises excitement. Instead, what I got was some over dramatization speech about choices in life between the duels. Donnie Yen still packs a punch, sure, but he should be paired with an actual martial artist that poses a real challenge. Not some beauty queen pretending to be one. It’s a hard sell, and I’m not buying. Not even with the well done production values.

Looking for a quick escapade to spent an eighty something minutes of your time with a fun, energetic, thinking is optional, action comedy? This film might have it all. From Paris with Love is a rather mindless, but very very fun action film and it really knows how to do it properly. Fan of action films should be having a good time. I know I did, and I’m not considered myself as an avid fan of action films.

Charles Wax (John Travolta) is a typical bad-ass protagonist who shoot first, ask questions later. Meanwhile, Reese (Jonathan Rhys Meyers), is a typical worker who works for an embassy and wishes for a break out of his career and did more than just a low-level espionage he was currently doing. He gets his chance when he was assigned as a temporary partner for Wax who was visiting Paris for somekind of a drug-bust, somekind of a man-hunt. Wax is an explosive guy, a loose cannon, a cheerful profanity factory, and a trigger happy which is of course, quite a necessary in order to produce over-the-top action sequences. Therefore, before long, he wreak havoc in the city of Paris with body counts quickly piled up (I’ve lost count somewhere between 25 and 30) while dragging Reese who simply trying to stay alive behind him.

Luc Besson (he’s credited only for “story”) and his crew really knows how to make an over-the-top yet fun action films. It is clear for me that John Travolta, donning his bad-cop suit as comfortable as it is possible, was given a leeway to do whatever he wants and oh my, does he delivers. His character is definitely a cartoon character (I mean, come on, Charlie Wax? Wax as in ‘let me wax your leg?’). Even so, it’s still a magnificently fun time to see him because I can feel that John Travolta was clearly having fun and it’s oozing, and it’s contagious.

The film mostly goes like this. Wax and Reese came into a scene. Wax beats, kills bad guys (as many as possible), while Reese struggling to stay alive, delivers one or two punch-line, tries not to upset his girlfriend, and comically holding onto whatever Wax has given him to hold on to. The film, however, fortunately if I may add, doesn’t try to develop the crazy guy (Wax)/normal guy (Reese) relationship. As far as I’m concerned, Wax didn’t start his day hating Reese, nor vice versa. Wax knows that he’s going to be paired with Reese, so does Reese. Even if they bickers, they didn’t flail at each other and simply tagging along to get the job done in a fashion that became the main focus of this film at all the time. Actions, explosions, and violence. All of which were well-shot ones. Dialogs? Plotting? Characterization? Nah, we’re not talking about an ambitious trilogy here. So why bother?

My rating: **1/2 / **** Fun time action film. See this film and tell me if it wasn’t a fun one. If you didn’t enjoy this one, you might have something tugging in your mind. Bad day at the office? Downturn in a relationship? Release it all, let loose, and enjoy. Oh, a heavily buttered pop corn and a sweet soda didn’t hurt.

P.S. Charlie Wax made an utterly unexpected reference to that little film back in 1994. I’m the only one who laughed when he said it. Well, we can’t all be a movie buff (Hint: That little film was written by Quentin Tarantino).