Snow White and the Huntsman

Released in June 2012, this adventure movie is a new take on the Grimm classic "Snow White and the seven dwarves" in which the Huntsman ordered to take Snow White into the woods to be killed, winds up becoming her protector in crossing the dead forest to her uncles caslte to round up an army against the evil queen.

The movie was directed by Rupert Sanders and written by Evan Daugherty and John Lee Hancock and stars Kirsten Stewart, Chris Hemsworth and Charlize Theron. 

Well... I think I'll start with the good things this time. 

The setting is extraordinary. Beautiful mountains and forest. It's amaizing. The designs of the mystical creatures and the cool mushrooms with eyes. It's just really, really cool. 

The music, epic and kind of medival, it's fine. Except for the moment in which the dwarves are playing a song that sounds just like Titanic. It's really cool music. 

And last, but not least: the special effects. Those are just too cool. 

The acting is not bad for Hemsworth and Theron's part. I'll talk later about Kristen Steward. 

The rest of this movie is crap. 

Starting from the script, which is lousy at best, with a lot, and I mean a LOT of plot devices and badly explained things, up to the casting director. I really don't think that you can call Kristen Stewart the most beautiful woman of the planet. And yet, if the script was a little better or the actor direction a little more acurate, she could have done a pretty good performance. 

Anyway, if you're a teenage girl, you'll probably like it. I mean, it's the movies target and from the teenager opinions I've heard, they think it's entertaining. If you're going to watch it fro Chris Hemsworth, I recomend you to watch the Avengers instead. And if you wanna see Charlize Theron, she's done a load of better movies. If you're like me and wanna see it for the special effects, go for Cameron's Avatar or Tim Burton's  Alice in Wonderland. They have better effects (even though Alice's effects and animations are very similar at some points) and the acting is a load better in both. 

And if you wanna see romance and twisted fairytales, do yourself a favour and just watch the series Once Upon a Time, which has a better script, better actors, and loads of epic music. 

Dark Shadows

Tim Burton directs this horror comedy released only last week. It's based on a TV-Series also called Dark Shadows and, like the series, it tells the story of a vampire that was imprisoned for two hundred years. As he escapes he finds that his family's fortune has disappeared and that the evil witch that imprisioned him is responsible for it. So he sets on to get the money back as well as wooing the family's new nanny.
It stars Johnny Depp as Barnabas Collins, Michelle Pfeiffer as Elizabeth  Collins and Eva Green as Angelique Bouchard. Plus Helena Bonham Carter as Dr. Julia Hoffman and as always the music is done by Danny Elfman. 

This movie is based in a TV series of 1966, which had around 1500 chapters. I haven't seen the original series, but I have seen some of the chapters of the Revival done in 1990. The Rivival's treatment of the story is way darker than Tim Burton's movie, it doesn't have the comedy take that this one has, which makes the story pretty interesting. The problem of the movie is that, based in a series which is so long, there are some things that don't get enough time or explanations.

And I think that's about all I have to critisice of this movie. I loved the way it is set in the 70s, how the music and the brands are set on screen. Plus every line uttered by Johnny Depp is a mine of gold.

The visual effects, make up, dresses and sets, are worth seeing. I loved them all, specially the werewolf and the visuals around Angelique Bouchard.

DARK SHADOWS TRAILER

Well it's a Tim Burton movie. It's funny and beautiful, the script is whitty and the acting is just perfect. The make up work and the special effects alone are worth every second.

The Hunger Games

This adventure movie directed by Gary Ross and based on the book by Suzanne Collins was released in April 2012 and tells the story of Katniss Everdeen who volunteers to take her younger sister's place for the anual Hunger Games, a competition in which a boy and a girl from each of the twelve districts in which the United States have been divided have to fight to death until only one survivor is left. 

It stars Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen a tribute of district twelve and Josh Hutcherson as Peeta Mellark the other tribute of district twelve. 

As always I'll start with the worst of this movie, which isn't much, but it's incredibly bad done. 

I don't really know much about music, but what little I know is that it can be half the movie. The music gives depth and tension and it can show the grandness of a set with more eficiency than any shot. The music in this movie is so thin, so incredibly thin and weak that it even throws you back in some scenes. Don't get me wrong, it can be beautiful. Katniss' song is really nice and there are very well set silences, but at some places it really doesn't cover half of the grandness it should show. James Newton Howard did a great job with Pretty Woman or Dinosaur, but here he failed. 

A point of controversy is the treatment of violence in this movie.If you're looking for something like Battle Royale (which has a similar plot), then you really shouldn't watch this. Even though the books are pretty bloody, the movie has been thined in this aspect. In comparison there's nearly no violence. Most of the killings aren't shown, but there are some pretty nice shots of the girl killed by wasps and the death of the little girl. 

Other than that the adaptation is pretty good. It cuts very little - most of which is Katniss running around alone  through the forest  and asking herself if Peeta is trying to kill her or not. Among the writers were not only the director, Gary Ross, but also the writer of the books, Suzanne Collins, which is allways good if you're adapting from a book. The point of view changes between the book and the movie. In the books the whole story is told from Katniss' point of view alone, here you have an omniscient point of view, which allows for multiple plotlines that are only hinted in the books. There's a better presentation of President Snow (the president of the United States  played by Donald Sutherland) than in the first book, there's also a better presentation of Seneca Crane (played by Wes Bentley). It also shows  how the population sees the Hunger Games and how it is prepared and ploted.

The setting and dresses are pretty cool, and pretty close to the book. Some of the scenes seem taked directly out of a Tim Burton movie, specially the character of Effie Trinket (played by Elisabeth Banks). It's very rich and the special effects are just too cool. 

I have to talk also of Jennifer Lawrence interpretation, which I loved. She impersonates an 16 year old girl and, even though she seems a little bit too old, she gives a really good interpretation, specially in those shots in which she's scared. 

THE HUNGER GAMES TRAILER

Well, I know it's not the best movie, but it's pretty neat, nicely done with interesting and round characters, cool special effects and interesting disign. The main actors are beautiful and do a decent job. It's a chick-flick with some aspirations and critic - which will propably be more developed in the next movies. I liked it - if I forget about the disastrous music - and that's why I recommend it. It's entertaining  and that's about it. 

Erik - Portrait of a Living Corpse

This horror drama is a retelling of Gaston Leroux's Phantom of the Opera from Erik, the Phantom's twisted point of view, directed by Ryan Bijan in  2010 and released two years later. It stars Ryan Bijan as Raoul, Autumn Hyun as Christine Daae and  Matthew Brett Ham as Joseph Buquet. Erik, the main character, is untitled as it was played by more than one actor. 

Before I start this review I'd like to point out that this is a really low-budget movie, done by an amateur cast and a 19 year-old director, who's also writer and actor. I got to know this movie  - as well as most of the Phantom movies I've seen - thanks to the PhantomReviewer and I have to agree with him once more: this movie is worth the buying. 

The things I didn't like about this movie are really few and mostly due to the inexperience of the cast and director.

The worst thing by far is the audio. I'm not sure if it's due to the cut or the problems with a bad mic, but there are places where you can't really understand what the cast is saying.
This is directly related to the cut. In general the final cut's amaizing. Yet there are some scenes in which it's not as neat as it should be. Two examples of this are the scene at Perros' graveyard, where Raoul answers a question Christine doesn't do, and the scenes where Erik talks to Christine through the mirror. A scene in which the  editing makes no sense, is the one in which Madame Giry enters Box V and has some sort of conversation with Erik, while you see Erik in another box on the other side of the theatre. It's rather confusing, but as it's a really short scene...

Other than that I had only isues with Meg Giry's acting, which could have been a lot better. In general the acting was ok. Not brilliant, but ok. I think Erik was the best played. His whole presentation is great and he has some rather awesome scenes such as the park scene, in which the viewer get's glimpses of his humanity. Christine has some sort of character, which is allways nice, plus she kicks Raoul, which is even nicer. Don't get me wrong, Ryan Bijan does a great job as Raoul, but I just can't stand that character.

The script ads some interesting things to the traditional story. It's very close to the Leroux Novel, including things that don't usually make it into the movies. The scene at Perros, includes the throwing of skulls at Raoul, scene I think haven't ever seen in a Phantom movie, and Raoul even has this little and anoying moustache. It also gives Erik some of his bad-ass-ness back. He kills, he threatens, he throws the voice and he does evil things. And the killings are rather colourful and beautifully innecesary. For example Compte Phillipe D'Arcy- who hadn't made it into a Phantom movie since 1925- death scene is rather unnecesary, but got me laughing at the strangeness of it.
A problem of the script is: it focuses so much on Erik, that it nearly forgets to show the world of the other characters, making some of the scenes difficult to follow if you aren't familiar with the original story - which in turn focuses so little on the Phantom's point of view, that you really don't get a good look at him.

The best thing by far is the cinematography by Wesley Kirk and Spencer Wallace. The movie is beautiful to watch. The scenes and decoration, the colors... Specially those turning around the phantom. Erik's lair has finaly turned into a normal regular house, with a great persian rug and Luis XVI furniture - sort of.
As this was filmed in Texas, USA, the crew found a problem: the Opera wasn't really that old, at least the inside of the building. It looks rather moddern. As does Christine's dressing room. Some of the scenes are very victorian - the Phantom's lair and Carlotta's dressing room, while others are completly modern, like the corridors of the Opera House, and the stage and even some of the dresses. This duality is great, and helps making the story a-temporal.

I have to praise the work of the costume and make up department. Erik wears a great black mask and a smaller white one which allows to see his chin, teeth and mouth. And those are disgusting. Really and uterly disgusting. His cloack- a big red and black thing- is spectacular and I just love his fedora.
Christine's dresses are rather acurate at times, and Carlotta's green dress is just amaizing.

Last but not least I have to talk about one of the Lair scenes. All of them are great, from the dinner scene to the unmasking scene.  But I think the best one is the praying scene in which Erik kneels in a muslim fashion on his persian rug and thanks god. That scene and the park scene in which Erik goes through a big and beautiful park and plays with a squirrel, are THE most beautiful scenes of the whole movie.

ERIK - PORTRAIT OF A LIVING CORPSE TRAILER

I really recomend this movie to you, for it's flaws don't outshine it's greatness. Of course you have to watch it bearing in mind it's only the first half of the story (Act I) and that it was made by amateurs, with no budget and barely professional. The result is the clear reason why people do movies: not to earn loads of money, but because there's a story to be told. 

Beetlejuice

Directed by Tim Burton in 1988, this comedy tells the story of a recently deceased ghost couple  that contact a 'bio-exorcist' in order to remove the obnoxious new owners of their house. 

It stars Alec Baldwin and Geena Davis as the Maitlands, Winona Ryder as Lydida Deetz and Michael Keaton as Beetlejuice. 

One of - I think - the less known Tim Burton movies. It's also one of his first full-length movies. And it's pure Tim Burton style. 

The story is funny and well developed. The Maitlands are your typical american loving-couple from the 80's, whereas the Deetz are atypical, and strange and really bizzare. The wife is a modern artist, the father want's just peace and quiet but can't leave his work behind him and the daughter is a goth girl who can see ghosts. 

If you ask me the only thng you have to take out of the movie is Beetlejuice. I think you either love the guy or you hate him. I hate him. I don't find him funny and whatching the movie in spanish didn't help. I swear in the 80's there where only 4 spanish dubbers, you hear the same freaking voices in every movie. 

Anyway. The best thing of the movie is the visual part. As I said before Beetlejuice is your pure Tim Burton movie with it's bizzare buildings - the Maitland's house has only 10 windows, and it ends up looking in the inside more like a grave than a real house. The collors are saturated and bright with loads of black and white and strange lights. And then comes the stop-motion animation, which is, like allways pure awesomeness. 

BEETLEJUICE TRAILER

All in all a very decent movie, with a good script, funny moments, great music by Danni Elfman and awesome stop-motion. Please don't watch it doubled in spanish. 

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Written and directed by Joss Whedon in 2008 and starring the Tony-winner Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion and Felicia Day, this musical miniseries, tells the story of Dr. Horrible, an aspiring supervillain who must balance his career and his pursuit of Penny, a beautiul do-gooder in love with his archenemy, Captain Hammer. 

The three episodes are just 15 minutes each, yet they're 15 minutes of pure genious.

Neil Patrick Harris is a great singer and a fine actor, with a lot of facial expression. The main character is an incompetent mad-scientist who has a videolog and a crush on a do-gooder with whom he goes to the laundromat. I mean, come on! He's a supervilain in a laundromat, that in itself is funny. 

Captain Hammer, played by Nathan Fillion is such a dick, you hate him from second one. He's the superhero who fights against Dr. Horrible. Usually you espect some nice yet-stupid  good guy, who hasn't much of a brain, but a big heart. Yet Captain Hammer is an ass, who just hits on Penny because he knows that Dr. Horrible is in love with her. He's also very vain and smug, and... I think there's nothing to like in either his character nor his looks. 

The music is just great. As I said before, Neil PAtrick Harris is a great singer, as are the other two main characters. 

The jokes are hilarious. Check also the Bad Horse Chorus, the first time they appeared I laughed so hard I had to watch the scene two times. The ending left me completly frozen in place, it was absolutely unexpected and...

DR. HORRIBLE'S SING-ALONG BLOG TRAILER

Just go and watch the bloody thing, it's barely 45 minutes long and you won't regret it. 

Ultraviolet

Directed in 2006 by Kurt Wimmer, this action movie tells the story of a beautiful hemophage infected with a virus that gives her superhuman powers who has to protect a boy, who's thought to be carrying antigens that would destroy akk heophages.

It stars Milla Jovovich as Violet, Cameron Bright as the boy called Six, and William Fichtner as a nerdy scientist called Garth.

So, let's begin with the review: 

Those of you who have been reading my blog so far surely know that I'm not all that picky with the movies I watch. I believe that there's a moment in which nearly every movie can be entertaining. I don't say good, I say entertaining. Because that's what movies are there for: to ease  you into a new world, troubles that have little to do with you, action and fantasy and whatever. There's a good moment to watch nearly everything if you're in the right mood. 

I can't think of a mood in which you would like to inflict this movie upon your brain. 

The acting is crap. Pure and total crap. The onlyone that can be saved - if barely - is William Fichtner, who's cute, nice and has about 2 minutes of screentime. I mean, come on! MIlla Jovovich did an amaizing job in The Fifth Element, kicked ass in the Resident Evil saga.. Hell, she did even do a good job in the Three Musketeers! What went wrong here? The child is also awfull. I usually don't like movies with child, but this one couldn't even act! 

So, if the acting sucks, maybe a movie can be saved by either the story or the looks. The story is... non-existent. Well, I'm lying here, it does exist, but it's just some thin and translucent excuse to make Violet run around showing her flat belly and wielding a sword. 

Good, usually people wielding swords can safe a movie. Take Thor as an example. The story sucks, but he runs around with a hammer and you have some fun watching him getting hit time and time again by Natalie Portman... After 0.3 seconds of Ultraviolet you grow to hate the swordwielding. The visual effects are computer generated. If you're going to say that there are a lot of good movies - a lot of really good series - with computer-generated graphics, and that those are really good, I agree. The trouble is not that they are computer generated. It's that you can see the computer doing it. It's really badly done, so that you can't believe one second of it. And the action scenes are so paste together that they loose all their flow and just seem fake. 

One of the most impressive sequences, in which Violet jumps from a building and throws the motorcycle she's driving into an helicopter, has far more effect in P!nk's videoclip "There you go", released in 2002.

There's one last thing that drives me mad in this movie and if somebody has read the comics, watched the series or just knows, I'd be really grateful: what's the matter with A) Violet's hair and B)Violet's clothing. Why does it change shape and collors? Where the writers so laizy they couldn't decide in one hair collor... or a motive for it's magically changing. 

And the hint towards the Clockworck Orange is ridiculous and out of place, that movie is good, this one shouldn't even try to remind you about it, it only manages to drag it further down. Sorry, but somebody had to say it.

ULTRAVIOLET TRAILER

So, if you where considering watching this. I don't think you want anymore. It's not even good as background noise. You see this on TV and change channels. It will spare you a an hour and a half you can use doing anything else.