This is not the first time I’ve seen a movie about the struggle of a silent actor to stay relevant when the industry introduces dialogs (or the talkies as history would have it). Now, at this point the aesthetic choice of this movie is becoming clear. There’s little or even perhaps no better way to tell the story about a struggling silent actor to stay relevant in an industry that has moved on than going for the silent treatment. And the treatment works very well too, not just a gimmick but also helped to establish the emotional struggle that “The Artist” himself experienced.

Jean Dujardin as “The Artist” was really at home in this movie. I’m not really sure how to put it into words, but his persona is clearly fitting for an actor of olden days and once you see him in action, it is easy to see why he lands the role, and how he nails it every single time. But I’m actually more inclined to fall in love with Berenice Bejo as this movie’s leading lady. As I’ve said before, I was wrong with my predicament of this movie. And the reason I was wrong is solely because of how effective Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo as the leading couple of this movie. I was swept away with their story, their, well, arguably over-the-top romance. However, I can’t help myself but falling in love more with Berenice Bejo. Her nuanced sincerity is easily seen and without the hint of a haughtiness I had often had to suffer when dealing with a lovely leading lady in a movie. I honestly think that hers is one of the best performance by an actress from the year 2011, and definitely my first favorite.

And then there’s the theme of pride and a struggle to stay relevant. A theme I could very much relate to and one that make this movie, for me, is a much more enjoyable one. Probably more than most.

I have seen only three silent movie in my lifetime and even if this movie is technically a silent movie (for most of its duration anyway), I would not put this movie into the same pedestal (or category). In every way, this is a modern movie with a silent treatment used as no more than just a means to deliver an end rather than an end in itself. And also, with a bit of history cinema weighing in (the transition from silent movies to talkies happened around the years spanned in this movie), this movie is a must see to any self-proclaimed movie buff. The result, however, may and will vary.

Oh, and because I really love tap dance, I had this huge smile on my face at the end of the movie.

“The Grey” is men against nature movie and the last time I was so impressed with men against nature genre is with “The Way Back.” But while “The Way Back” is more drama and calmer in demeanor, “The Grey” is grimmer, colder and by result, I’m liking it a tad more. Not to mention that there’s this Liam Neeson factor. It should be noted though, that the dangers in “The Grey” are more often than not, hinted rather than showed. But I daresay that it was more effective that way and by date, “The Grey” is I think, the best Joe Carnaghan movie. By far.

I’m skipping the plot narrative here as it would be best to enjoy it by oneself. The movie, as was the usual with a movie in such genre, switches back and forth between thrill period, where the men were faced off with struggles and dangers and calm period, expertly placed to provide a moment’s respite and to kept the most important element from this movie alive to keep it relevant for a more attentive viewers. Hope. Understandably, as the movie progresses, I’m more and more drawn toward the calm periods that this movie has to offer. It’s easy to ruin these periods but “The Grey” had done a great job in treating them. Here, in these periods, the movie gave its characters a life and they are uniformly, for the better. For example, a character that was once considered a dead weight, turns out to be more sophisticated and not just a one dimensional bastard I thought he was. And no characters are left behind. Even if some characters had a different (shorter) screen time, for me personally, I had invested interest to each character and therefore made a character’s loss is that much harder and not just a guessing game of “who died next.”

It is surprising. Pleasantly surprising because I had thought that Liam Neeson would carries this movie alone. Even if he is still, a considerable character, an established de-facto leader of the men (you can’t argue against that voice. No you can’t), and receives a top billing (and the only name to appears on the movie’s poster), in the end he is only one of the men and not significantly more important than any one of them. Therefore I really liked how Joe Canaghan and his writers had done for the characters in this movie. How important they are, you ask? I could name all of the movie’s characters because I had taken an effort to actually memorized them. That is how important these characters are for me. Even one of the most memorable scenes from this movie for me is not Liam Neeson’s scene.

But of course, you can’t argue on how beautiful Liam Neeson’s final scene is. And I really liked how the movie chose to ends itself. Some would be disappointed with it. But I would not rate this movie higher had it ends any other way.

Well, doesn’t matter what Ghost Rider is and what he does, and why he does it. It is of a very tremendously little interest because I had expected absurdities and wild actions that has become one staple from Neveldine/Taylor I came to liked very much. But instead, the movie gives me narratives, expositions, all the yaddas-yaddas with actions I could only described as merely lazy here and there. I guess they are trying to push the added dimension to this movie. But who cares about it? I know I’m not. Ah, sure, the flaming huge mining machinery is cool, sorta, but when “Crank” which doesn’t even make sense could have a non-stop and hugely entertaining actions, why must they, Neveldine/Taylor I mean, in this movie, tried to squeeze sense into a flaming skull who rides a flying (and burning) motorcycle? It was a futile effort and not even a valiant one as well. If this is not the end of the franchise, then I don’t know, probably the numbers are right. And that is the state of movie making that I don’t want to see. Not in my lifetime, anyway.

I am honestly hard pressed to think of another actor who has worked as much as Nicolas Cage nowadays. He is literally everywhere, one has to wonder why, or how does he keeps getting a role. To be fair, he is the only one in this movie who did a decent job that resembles acting. Everybody else is a throwaway. A body bag that talks. There’s absolutely no chemistry between the talking bags and Nic Cage that I had exercised a fantasy about alerting the authorities of a child molestation possibility when Jhonny Blaze seemingly makes a sort of father/son connection to the child. I had to wonder how does this scene gets out of the editing room. Watching it makes me very uncomfortable. Oh, but Christopher Lambert (though it does not really matter) makes a brief appearance, only to scowl and wither. Literally.

Now what about the plot? Euh, never mind. Looking back, the only memorable moment from this movie is the animation montage from the opening title. And a general rule of thumb still applies here. If a non-animated movie opens with an animation montage, it has nowhere else to go but down.

In the end, I’m rather glad Nicolas Cage had never had a role as Clark Kent because he is such a big fan of Superman but I may be ahead of myself here. *shudder*

Tuck (Tom Hardy) and FDR (Chris) is what you’d call a bro-for-life. They both a CIA field agent (I refused to call them a Spy as the movie’s tagline has suggested), one would went an extra mile to cover the other’s back, getting together for a “Chips” marathon and a Rock Band session, one who would not hesitate in saying “I love you” to one another. You know, best friends. Then came this woman between them, and you know the rest. There’s this throwaway plot about some German dude who want a revenge or something, but it hardly matters. This throwaway plot only exists to give the boys an action time but the real “plot” is about this woman and of course, who is she gonna chose at the end.

To give it credits where it’s due, the boys had a great chemistry. Tom Hardy is a serious actor at heart and I believe this is his first full foray into a comedy but he held reasonably well. More than enough for me to get even more curious about his Bane in the next Batman film. Oh, I think it’s going to be great. Chris Pine is obviously more fitting for his character and I think he doesn’t have to work really hard for it. But my point is, both have a great chemistry. Which is why when the lady comes between them, I’m sorry, but I honestly, cannot like a character that ruins a very well defined and very liked on-screen friendship. Especially if the character is brought out by an actress that I’m not interested to begin with. I think it would’ve been better if you convinced that the actress is worth the cost of a friendship. I might, for instance, had a change of heart if it was Amy Adams in her shoes. But, beggars can’t be choosers, right?

Hollywood, and probably entertainment business in general are not very forgiving to the ladies. I could name several actors who are well above sixty and even approaching and beyond eighty and still gets a nice paycheck without the cynic called them a “sell-out.” Above fifty? And there are lots more. But the ladies? They had it hard. I believe I had read a lengthy article about this, this, commercialization of youth in Hollywood. And then there’s this case about an actress who sued imdb because the site had listed her age. What I’m trying to say is, while men are generally accepted to be more ripe as they age, the women, in my opinion and within an entertainment industry, did not. At least, far too small in number to make it matter. So, while I could admire both Tom Hardy and Chris Pine because of their gorgeous figure and tight fit suit, I wish I could say the same to the lady. I guess, in the end, I was at fault as well because, I am judging the women in the film from their age too. Hm.

One last note, the lady in this movie is actually older than both boys.

What got me excited about this movie is almost the same with what got me excited on “The Girlfriend Experience” where he casts Sasha Grey. “Haywire” immediately went blipping ominously into my radar when the name Soderbergh and a quirk that he casts a real Mixed Martial Arts (see “The Fighter”) sportswoman, Gina Carano to headline a movie littered with male casts that absolutely doesn’t need any introduction (McGregor, Fassbender, Douglas, Banderas, Paxton, and to some extent, Tatum). Tough I’m bit lukewarm with the end result (just like I was with “The Girlfriend Experience”), I liked how Soderbergh presents his tale, style, sounds, and all, and there are some select scenes that particularly shines. Also, I’m pleasantly surprised with how Gina Carano held her own and not falter away when it comes the time for her to put her acting hat. But more importantly, this is still by and large a Soderbergh’s film. And even a good Soderbergh film would qualify as many other’s great film.

“Haywire” is a story of a special agent, Mallory (Gina Carano). She, and her employer Kenneth (Ewan McGregor) specializes in a government sub-contract for, let’s say, a bit grey territory. However, someone (or ones) wants her out of the picture and before long, she was out, seeking for revenge.

I was taken by surprise during the first scenes of this movie. The sudden fistfight between Mallory and Aaron (Channing Tatum), one of her team crew, was so effective and sounds wise, very different than many other action movies I had seen out there. It’s, to describe it simply, the opposite of loud and thankfully, the trend continues all the way to the end. In itself, this is a two bladed sword. One group would gives it a much credit (I was obviously a proud member of this group), and the other, and I imagined it would be the majority, is definitely going to be adamant with it. At best. All in all, this scene showcased Gina Carano natural talent in fighting, and although I found out that some of her moves elicit some chagrin from the audiences I’m seeing this movie with, these moves are, as ridiculous as they may look, is a legit (not to mention, deadly) locking technique you would see at any MMA match. Of course, here, there’s no referee to stop the fight when you’re tapping out.

Presented in a flashback, the movie had some freedom to bridge the narration between locations and key events. Some plot hole may jumped out and showed itself, and it’s inevitable. However, I personally found that the script is plausible enough and the movie had held itself pretty well and not letting these holes to become a nuisance.

In short word, the movie first scenes is a good indicator whether you’re going to like the journey or not. As I’ve said, I loved the way the scenes and sounds traveled through the screen and the first scenes had taken me by surprise. A delight surprise. I mean, when the gun went off and hit the floor, even if I had described it as the opposite of loud, it hooked me right away.

A bit side note, my wife had drooled for the most of the movie due to its uniformly handsome casts. Even down to the non-speaking role actor. Her words, not mine, but I’m not going to argue.

But then the reviews started to trickling in, and they are at the very least, were positive even as far as attaining fresh rating from rottentomatoes. At this point, my wonderment turns into curiosity as I wondered if that perhaps there is some kind of a novelty that this movie has to offer to have such positive response. It turns out that, maybe I’m the wrong generation because there are so very few memorable moments from this movie that at first I struggled to see the fallacy of my early predicament. But in the end, no matter how I look at it, the truth remains. I can’t like “The Muppets” and I’m very disappointed with Ms.Adams for taking part in this movie. Hey, maybe I *am* the wrong generation.

The plot is very straightforward and it is my fault to expect otherwise and came out disappointed in the end. “The Muppets” are rightfully the thing of the past. They are fairly irrelevant and the world has moved on. But not for one loyal fan who wished to see them together again. Throw in some villain with an agenda to disband the Muppets once and for all, and you know exactly how the movie will end. Surprise! Well, no. Not even a surprise ending.

I read somewhere that they used to have the Muppets show loaded with celebrity cameos and who’s-who appeared regularly at the show. Tho movie lives to that tradition and it has a very generous amount of cameos, they have their own section at the end credit roll. It’s not much, but I have (well actually, more like trying to) more fun playing the game of spot-the-cameo than invested in the story development which I pretty much suspected, and probably true, is more to serve as a mere nostalgic device.

The movie occasionally breaks the fourth wall, a joke that I’m quite sure not that very effective against Indonesian audiences, some songs with a quite entertaining and some pinch of hilarity on its lyric, and for me personally, a new rendition to Nirvana’s classic, “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” Dave Grohl also serve as one of the cameo, by the way. And for me, that is pretty much about it.

She’s Mark Wahlberg’s wife, happily married with two kids. She knows what her husband did for a living once. A successful smuggler, only to retire and goes legit. Her brother, however, chose not to. After a botched smuggling job that put him on a seven hundred thousands dollar debt, one friend short, and a bad rep to a trigger happy drug lord, he has put his life and his sister’s family in danger. If you think that he’s a no good brother-in-law, well, yes, he is. But Mark Wahlberg’s character is so gold that he, with the help of his old friends, immediately went into the job himself to pay his brother-in-law’s debt. And, oh yeah, to save his family’s life. Probably that, too.

I’ve always loved a caper movie. Seeing a group, each with their own specialties, working hand-to-hand, shoulder-to-shoulder, to achieve one seemingly impossible goal, swiveled around obstacles, and always, and I mean always going off the books because something wrong comes up, is exactly my kind of fun.

“Contraband” has all the formulas above and at times, it lived up to expectations. Even if the movie runs a bit long, perhaps more so than necessary, there are times that the thrill escalates enough to really hook me up. However, caper-wise, there’s not much happening in this movie. Unlike most notable caper movies where the caper sometimes necessitates creativity in a way that makes you goes “ooh!,” “Contraband” is emphasizing more on skill and experience than creativity and intelligence. Mark Wahlberg’s character is an experienced smuggler and he does nearly all the work himself despite having several men he could named as “crew.” And he’s definitely has enough experience to overcome the odds. But like I’ve said, ignoring the many botched plots (and there are quite a few. But fret not! It’s easier to be ignorant with the help of many additives you could have at the concession bar), it still qualifies as a good enough caper movie.

Mark Wahlberg has grown into a niche role as a good guy in crime profession, and he does it nicely. Though I sorely missed his role that is similar to the one he did in “The Departed,”, and his role in this film seems to be closer to that of his role in “The Big Hit” which is at the wrong end of the ratings, he still did a pretty good job. Kate Beckinsale is sadly nothing more than just a passing glance. I’m not sure how much she got paid for this role, but I think you could get a comparable artist to fill her role with half of her salary. That’s how wasted she is in this movie. Ben Foster however, is another story. He is completely underused, but he manages to have a remarkable and memorable performance in this movie even if given how short his time was. This dude has a scary stare if he wants to, and his dejected look at the end of the movie is a moment respite from a movie devoid of memorable acting performance.

Oh, one more thing. Apparently, in only one hour, you could find a correct warehouse with only limited knowledge (“I’ll know it when I see it”) in Panama City, helped an armored car hijack, escapes full fire from local polices and squeezed enough time to board a container ship, and clean the goods for good measure. And it took me nearly as much to write this review. Hm, there must be something wrong with my life.

“The Thing” is a shape-shifter alien able to disguise itself into any life form (dogs, humans, although I wonder if it could turns itself into mosquitos because if it could, well, damn, there will be absolutely no hope for human race as we know it). In the first movie, this alien “discovers” the humans situated on a remote scientific camp in Antarctica. In this movie, still taking place in Antarctica, is how the humans “discovers” the alien in the first place. Everything else is almost identical. The chase, the realization, the “are you real, or are you an alien?” routine, even down to flamethrower details. Another difference is that instead of Jeff Bridges leading the show, this movie has Mary Elizabeth Winstead and to put it bluntly, Winstead’s character is one of my favorite female characters of the year 2011.

I have often complained about the lack of non-stereotyped female characters in the movie nowadays. They are either slutty, hovering in the background with no sense of importance, and as flat as my laptop screen that any bump, even a slight one is such a rarity that if it comes to pass, I’d have a smile to my face at the end of a movie.

Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s character in this movie gives me just that. She’s not a damsel-in-distress, prone to drag down our heroes and questionable decisions that makes us rolled our eyes in disbeliefs, nor is she a whining beauty queen more afraid to get a clip on her nail than blasting a deadly looking creature with a flamethrower. She’s not afraid to take a chance, and stepping up to the plate when she’s the only one reasonable enough in a room full of angry, afraid, desperate, and selfish men. A strong-willed, sure, and independent woman the kind of woman I liked. And sure enough, I am literally still in love with her character when the movie ends.

Aside from her character, I am appreciative to the idea of the team behind “The Thing” went animatronic route than going full CGI with the “thing.” The first movie was lauded because of such effective use of special effects with animatronics. The “thing” from that original movie, nearly thirty years ago, is still very good on today’s screening pleasure and with agreeably more sophisticated equipments they have nowadays, it is to be expected that the animatronics should be manifolds better than the original. Now I can’t vouch about it being better by manifolds or not, but they are definitely more prominent as the scenes involving the “thing,” in term of time, is longer than the original. But I’m pretty sure that the novelty would’ve been very different, and not in a good sense, had the scenes went full or partial CGI.

All in all, for a monster movie, and one that has received quite a backlash for a rather un-creative execution, this is a pretty good one. Absolutely not at the level of say, “District 9,” and comparing Winstead’s character (see, I don’t even remember her proper name) to Sigourney Weaver’s Ripley would not do both a justice, it’s still an enjoyable one. Plus, Winstead’s character could easily elicit love from yours truly here. And that is definitely a good thing.

I was too young to remember Margaret Thatcher, but at the very least, I know about her enough that when a movie titled “The Iron Lady” came out, surmised that it was about the former prime minister of England and rather than that Marvel super-hero which is to my surprise, there is actually quite a few of them out there. As it was, because my previous knowledge on Margaret Thatcher is largely negligible, I took everything that this movie has to offer at its face value. And even if it, as I’m quite sure most of autobiographical works out there are, tends to emphasize on her better traits, I’m actually quite surprised with the balance of it. There’s this beautiful shot of her walking, at first, together with her peers and staffs, but then gradually, they grew apart as one character had put it succinctly, “the difference between me and the Prime Minister is no longer can be accommodated.” (may not an accurate, actual quote).

All in all, I had spent two hours of my time to see this movie and came out with something new which of course, put this movie firmly into my personal favorable side.

Meryl Streep is amazing. Her portrayal of the former prime minister, aging, stooped with a condition that most would’ve thought as bordering to senility, obviously required much work from the actress and she nails it every single time. I also really liked the manner of the movie that told about the life of Margaret Thatcher in a reminiscence rather than in a chronological order of her ascension. It put her into a favorable character and best of all, identifiable because we are not seeing her as an innocence turned ambitious first, nor her as a ruthless leader, but just a senile old woman who has gone through a lot, and just living her golden years, alone and maybe, just maybe, had some regrets of her own.

That being said, I’m not really keen with the directing of this movie. I found it to be a tad tedious and a bit over-excessive on its editing. There are numerous shots taken from Mrs.Thatcher’s point of view which I think not nearly as effective as it was intended. But the message it carries went through and it is a very enjoyable movie. Although it must be noted that some footage of riot and violence, brief as they are, might be a bit too disturbing for some. Ultimately, I think, during the Falklands island incident, I feel that our country’s leaders could benefit and learn a thing or two from this movie. But of course, who am I kidding? Our country’s leaders are probably too smart for a movie and too ignorant to actually listen to others. Such is the state of my dear country. I loved her dearly, and I wish I could say the same thing for my representatives at the parliament. I really do.

This movie is actually a prequel, although I, and I guess most of the audiences, didn’t care about it so much. It follows a now familiar plot of the series, which is a night (and day) recording of the supposedly haunted house, and a found footage afterward. The principal casts of this movie were related to the first two movies of this series, but understanding is not required. In fact, this movie could be enjoyed independently even without any involvement or experience from the previous two movies. In short, plot is not important.

I had made a point to see “Paranormal Activity 3″ with a crowd. Not because this movie is so scary I chickened out and doesn’t want to watch it alone but because watching a predictable horror film with a crowd is so much fun that watching it alone is not a viable option anymore. Like I’ve said, it is the excitement (fear, probably included for some) that makes it fun.

Just like its predecessors (no surprise there), the movie cuts between footages from the cameras, installed in various room of the house, often alternating between night and day shots. For me, personally, what makes watching this movie fun and worth the admission fee I’m paying for is when the footage shifted from day to night. It is then that the crowd around me shifting uneasily, accompanied by nervous laughters, or false bravadoes, expecting that something is about to happen. Here, I think, even if you are very much prepared and have seen more than enough horror movies that absolutely nothing could scare you anymore, you won’t be able to ignore the excitements around you. And you just couldn’t help but to feel excited as well. They are contagious and that’s why I have to suggest you should see this movie with a crowd. The more, the merrier. Even if nothing happened, the sigh of reliefs is still a joy.

In term of scare, however, none of the scene from this movie could top the scene from the first Paranormal Activity when the woman in the footage just stood beside the bed for hours as the footage was fast forwarded. Now *that* is a very truly effective scare. The oscillating camera is a very very effective device to amped up the expectation, though. But just like hunting, it is often the thrill of the chase, and not the prize that matters. I may not entirely agree with how the series pan out at the end, and the idea of a fourth installment is a bit far fetched but for the time being, while there’s still a drop of milk to squeeze out, “Paranormal Activity 3″ may still have a few healthy drops.