shatteredrifle

In Killer Elite, Jason Statham plays Danny, a mercenary-for-hire who is thrust back into the action when his old friend Hunter (Robert De Niro) is captured. In order for Hunter to be released, Danny needs to eliminate British S.A.S. agents who are supposedly guilty of murdering the sons of a powerful sheik in the Middle East. Spike (Clive Owen) is dispatched by an underground council to intercept Danny and his crew. When two killers are let loose, who wins?

As expected, Killer Elite excels in action just like other Jason Statham movies. For every five minutes, there's a shootout, or a guy's head gets bludgeoned. It actually goes to great lengths to make the kills spectacular and unconventional. However, it is also this concentration on action that prevents the film from being more than average. Conversations are not really that deep, and personalities of the main characters were not really that fleshed out. For example, we get how Danny is as a person, but more background on Spike would have been interesting. Who is he really, and why did he become the way he is? Moreover, the nature of killing could have been explored more. After all, the title is Killer Elite.

Cast of characters is quite an assortment. Statham is a tried-and-tested lead while everyone knows Owen can pull off a villain anytime. All films become better just because of Robert De Niro's presence. Yvonne Strahovski plays Anne, Danny's love interest. It is good Yvonne's getting decent exposure in Hollywood, but she was heavily underused.

At the start of the story, it says that Killer Elite is based on a true story. It may have been a highly sensationalized version, but at least we can be assured that there is a grain of truth to what they are showing. Somehow, films based on real life are able to remind us that complicated situations need not be concocted by the mind but are everyday things. Shady decisions are really made for country prosperity.

Killer Eilite shows that everyone is a potential killer. Killing is also messy, and not just in the literal sense. It leaves tracks, makes a lot of people investigate for information, causes psychological problems and traumatizes children. Contrary to the tagline "May the best man live," there is no best man. Everyone just lives or dies with their mistakes.

Verdict: Watch if you are action hungry. Abstain if other things are more important for you in a movie.

Set in the near future, Real Steel stars Hugh Jackman as Charlie Kenton, a former world-class boxer in a world where humans have been replaced by robots as participants in the boxing sport. Supported by Bailey Tallet (Evangeline Lily), the daughter of his former trainer, he spends his time using these robots to earn a living and to possibly relive his glory days as a fighter, but his efforts go nowhere. His situation gets interesting when his son, eleven year-old Max (Dakota Goyo), reappears in his life and gives him the strength he needs to regain what he had lost.

Real Steel reminds viewers of all the boxing films that they have watched. Only this time, there is a twist. The fighters are like skinless Terminators ready to claw anyone that gets in their way. Action scenes are decent enough and camera movement is not shaky and distracting. The clinking of metal is like the cracking of one's jaw. The pain! A funny part of the film is when the robot dances. Yes, it actually does THE robot dance.

Cast assembled for Real Steel is pretty impressive. Hugh Jackman really knows how to play the good-looking asshole with the golden heart. He pulls off another Wolverine, except this time, he's a dad. Hollywood has been missing him lately and it is very good news that he is back with a bang. With her dirty work clothes, Evangeline Lily still manages to remain beautiful and elegant. Her character is easy to love, and after watching her in this film, I have decided to get my hands on all 6 seasons of Lost and watch them until my eyes pop out. Dakota is just an adorable kid and I am sure that he will grow up, smile, and break a lot of hearts.

In films, we learn a lot about ourselves. What better way of education than to watch something with... robots in it? Yes, you read that right. The presence of these machines actually help flesh out certain things about mankind.

1) As Charlie said in the junkyard while he was explaining the evolution of boxing, "people wanted more carnage, more show." It was Roman gladiators back then, it is cockfighting now, and it will be robot battle-to-the-death in the future. Somehow, people enjoy watching violence so much that creative ways are made to sustain this "hobby." Barbarism is unfortunately, still alive and well.

2) Man's love for entertainment. Instead of using these robots for something more useful (like planting, or construction), they are used for sports purposes. Now, it can be said that this is a film limitation given that everything about that supposedly future time still seems to be set in the present, but one can also argue that man just does not know how to use his ideas properly.

3) There will always be value in human ingenuity and skill. Even though the robots are doing the fighting, it is the people behind them that matter, and that is highlighted especially towards the end of the film.

4) Nothing bonds boys better than toys. Essentially, Real Steel is a about a reconnection of a father and son with the robots in the backdrop. We witness through these machines how Charlie and Max put aside their differences and accepted who they are to each other.

The only thing that I found confusing about Real Steel is why Atom was so good. Is it only shadow movement, or does he actually understand? He comes close to the IRobot concept a few years back, but the film never really tackles the depth of this robot and explains why he is the way he is.

I'm not a fan of boxing, I'm definitely not a fan of robots, and I only had 30 minutes of sleep when I watched this. Still, I loved every second of it. I know I recommend a lot of things but if ever you plan to start listening, you better do it now. Whether you watch movies every week or have not watched anything for a year now, Real Steel is a 2011 film you should not miss.

What's It About?

What's Your Number takes us into the story of Ally Darling (Anna Faris), a recently unemployed woman with no life direction (Sounds bleak? It actually gets bleaker). As she helps her sister Daisy (Ari Graynor) get ready for her wedding, Ally realizes that she has slept with a total of 20 guys without finding the right one. Because of a study that says women who reach up to this level are bound not to get married, she sets on a quest to track down these past lovers and give them another chance. With the help of his playboy neighbor Colin (Chris Evans), she finds them one by one, only to realize that it's not as simple as she thought it would be.

What's Interesting (And Not)?

What's Your Number has the usual things that romantic comedies have: an awkward girl out to take on the world,a hot guy who seems to be a jerk but is a gentle soul inside, a bunch of annoying (but thankfully attractive) family members and friends, a problem, a moment where the connection between the guy and the girl is established, the inevitable conflict and the realizations that end in tears and laughter. If you say that there seems to be nothing new in this film, then you would be right (Elizabeth Reaser's The Ex-List has a fairly similar concept). However, there is a reason why this is called the formula: it actually works. Things might be predictable and there might not be anything mind-blowing but it is still an entertaining ride. What's Your Number is generally funny, and it's not the forced type of funny. Anna Faris is always a treat to watch. Her antics make me laugh, smile, and laugh some more. Simply put, she brings the sexy in being silly. Chris Evans seems to be ageless so far. I am sure ladies will be relieved that his bulky Captain America look was not photoshopped after all. With the lighter mood and romance angle, this is more familiar ground for him, and it shows in his chemistry with Faris. Cameos do not hurt the film either. Brief appearances of Zachary Quinto and Martin Freeman are pleasant additions. Oh, and let us not forget that ridiculously amusing basketball scene!

What's the Verdict?

It is not just about a love story, or a comedy, or Chris Evans spending half of the time without a shirt, but figuring out who you are, and finding that person you want to celebrate that discovery with. It doesn't get sweeter than that. Again, you can find a LOT of this in a LOT of movies but why not look for this in "What's Your Number?"

Come on, flex those finger muscles and dial!

Folks, we find ourselves once again confronted with a local drama with a very general title: No Other Woman. Should we watch or just move along?

No Other Woman is about Ram (Derek Ramsay), a struggling businessman out to prove that he's better than his father, who left him when he was still a child. Married to the supportive Cha (Cristine Reyes), he finally gets a break when a resort gets interested in sourcing furniture from him. However, complications arise when he becomes attracted to Cara (Anne Curtis), the carefree daughter of the resort's owner.

Although I took a jab at the film title earlier, it actually helps us identify right away that the movie is about a love triangle. More than the love triangle concept, it tackles the issue of adultery. If there's one thing that Filipino cinema is good at, it is knowing that the target audience loves drama. The plot is somehow predictable but many people will be able to relate to this movie, which will translate to box office success. The film does not sensationalize the consequence of starting an affair but shows how it will always lead to betrayals and heartaches. The relationship between Ram and his father was mentioned frequently during the movie but oddly enough, I feel it wasn't given resolution.

One feature that is hard to miss out in No Other Woman is the dialogue. The character conversations make you listen and cringe at the same time. For example, the emotion of the story is fully conveyed in the words they say to each other, and it would be impossible for someone not to understand what is going on if she just listens. However, there are some questionable items that the scriptwriters should take note of. There is a scene where Ram and Cha are in the balcony; Ram is being dramatic about how his father-in-law is never satisfied about what he does and suddenly the word "bayag" flies into the air like it's the most logical thing to say. Almost every sentence involves a simile or a metaphor, and although some are really effective, others seem forced. From using seafood to picking the right type of bed, this movie takes the cake in saying something else than what is actually meant.

Seeing the trio in action with their ripped bodies and perfect faces kind of reminds me of an FHM shoot. However, it would not only be mean to say that No Other Woman is just a venue to show how hot these stars are but also untruthful. There is actually meat to their performance, and although their acting will not win them any awards, it can elicit enough sympathy from the viewers. Cristine Reyes is my favorite lead in this film. I think she is able to pull off the simple housewife attitude plus her transformation into a devious little bitch. For some reason, I did find myself sniggering at her dramatic monologue near the end of the movie, but hey, maybe that is just me. Anne Curtis, on the other hand, has really grown as an actress. I can hardly believe she started out in GMA's teen show T.G.I.S where she couldn't even speak straight Filipino and had shaky acting ability. Special mention should be given to Carmi Martin, who plays Cha's mother. She is the comic relief, and she does well in easing the tension with her hilarious lines and expressions.

So, after all that explanation, should you watch "No Other Woman?" Well, if you're looking for Grade A material, try another movie. If you're looking for heavy drama and you are a fan of these actors, then by all means, watch it. You won't be disappointed.

There's no need to beat around the bush about ABC's Revenge. If you're looking for a new TV show to watch this fall, then this should be one of the top candidates.

Revenge tells the story of Amanda, a young woman hell bent on bringing down everyone in the Hamptons who took his father away from her when she was just a little girl. Now calling herself Emily, she picks them off one by one, and will not rest until everyone gets what they deserve.

I like how this show is self-aware that revenge is something so messy it is hard to know what's right or wrong in the process. It puts a Confucius teaching at the start of the episode which goes like "Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves." Narration is also used, which helps develop the ominous mood in the air.

Great shows come from good casting choices. Emily Van Camp is perfect as Emily. She blends seamlessly with the rich crowd and yet stands out with her pretty face and dark intentions---the embodiment of innocence and deception. Although her methods are questionable, she is obviously the protagonist of the show. After all, we have enough straight arrows on television so it is wonderful to finally have someone complex like Emily. Madeleine Stowe plays her nemesis Victoria Grayson, also known as the Queen of the Hamptons. As shown in the first episode, she is a force to be reckoned with. With smiles as devious as they come, Emily will have a hard time if she is to dethrone Victoria.

Directed towards a young audience, the plot is very promising. A lot more needs to be fleshed out, which is something viewers want in a production. I am hoping that the "villains" of the show get more character development since we cannot have everything on black and white for a good story to exist. Given the premise, Emily can only exact revenge on a certain number of people before the show ends. This means that unless the conspiracy thickens even further and we find out that more are responsible for putting her father away, Revenge can only last for a short time (two seasons maybe, three seasons max) without it being overextended.

Which shows are like it? Revenge reminds me of Dexter with its morally-challenged title character, except this is with more scheming and less brutal murders (well, at least for now). It definitely has a touch of Gossip Girl (with the Hamptons and all, and Connor Paolo being it), but in this one, we know things are going to get ugly pretty fast, and it's not the oh-no-my-make-up-is-ruined kind of ugly. The first scene brings me back to the pilot episode of Damages where they give the audience a taste of the future without compromising suspense. This is a good tactic to shake things up. I just hope all questions raised will be answered in time.

Revenge is a fresh take on the high society life. The mixture of deadly betrayal and the elite lifestyle has got me looking forward to the rest of the season. No matter how hairy things are going to get, one thing is for sure, and that is the objective of the show: revenge. Wouldn't you want to watch something that still holds mystery even though you know perfectly well what you're getting yourself into?

TV comedies --- they're so many that you can't possibly watch them all unless you're unemployed and don't sleep regularly. The real question right now is which one has something new and exciting to offer.

How about New Girl? New Girl is about Jess (Zooey Deschanel), a woman who moves in with three guys to deal with her break-up issues.

It is not every day that someone as well-loved as Zooey Deschanel gets her own TV series. She may not be up there with the Oscars people but she has legions of fans that will support whatever material she appears in. Thankfully, these fans will not be disappointed. She takes on her character Jess with such familiarity. Jess is without a doubt one eccentric lady, but one whose innocence and frivolity get to you. I find it odd that she would be dumped by her ex Spencer (Ian Wolterstorff), but let us just assume that he was intoxicated during the time he made the decision and was not thinking very clearly. =)

The show relies on awkward humor to keep you watching, and for the most part, it works. I am happy to say that it doesn't have a laugh track. I think we have enough of those already and it gets in the way of determining whether a comedy is actually funny or just supposedly funny. Regarding Zooey's support, her crew of guys seem to have interesting personalities, but given that the pilot is only 20 minutes long, it is not enough to determine whether they will be a good complement or just bring disaster. The concept of the show is likable, although not the most original. Somehow, I can't help but think about Ryan Reynolds' Two Guys, a Girl and a Pizza Place in the late 1990s. One thing that I hope New Girl can overcome is becoming repetitive. Aside from Jess going on random dates and the guys helping her, what else can happen?

To answer the question I posted earlier, no, there isn't something new about this show except we get to be treated to a regular dose of Zooey Deschanel (which is good if you're a fan but sort of worthless if you aren't). However, don't get me wrong. I liked watching the pilot episode of New Girl. I didn't find myself gasping for breath or falling off my seat, but it definitely has its funny moments. Jokes were not as flat as I expected them to be. Many people were skeptic about the show's future but since that it has already been given a full season order, I expect it to at least last another season.

Give it a shot, folks. And keep your fingers crossed. We want more of our Zooey!

The Secret Circle follows Cassie Blake (Britt Robertson), the new girl in the town of Chance Harbor. Now living with her grandmother (Ashley Crow) due to the sudden death of her mom, she wonders why there are a lot of strange things happening around her. When 5 school kids take her to an isolated place in the woods, they explain that she is a witch, a revelation that leads to more questions than answers.

While watching the pilot episode, I understood why the show was able to break opening records in the CW network. The Secret Circle is a nice blend of supernatural drama and suspense, a formula that works given the Vampire Diaries' immense success. The characters are interesting enough to care about; the kids are central to the plot but the activities of the grown-ups get your attention as well.

When you have a new show, the one thing you absolutely need to do is get your audience hooked. The Secret Circle is able to do this well. Although nothing that will change your life happens in the premiere (a burning vehicle, magic-induced rain and a person drowning without even swimming) and at times it becomes slow in pace, the events put in place are exciting incentives for you to catch the next episode. Like Cassie, you would like to know what is really going on.

The show's presentation of magical powers is also refreshing. From my understanding, a witch needs to channel the energy inside her and concentrate so that she can alter the environment. Like in most things, there is strength in numbers. It's not as simple as a point-and-shoot type of ability but not as complicated as bloodletting (well, at least not yet). Even with a fantasy show, things have to remain grounded in reality to make it more believable. In terms of special effects, I am not yet completely sold. The forest scene was beautiful to look at but I think the storm could have been handled much better.

Britt Robertson is no stranger to this type of role, having starred in the CW's short-lived show Life Unexpected. She has this quality about her that makes her a strong female lead. Delicate and fierce at the same time, Cassie Blake is one girl you should not mess with. Thomas Dekker will be bringing fans from his previous shows Heroes and Terminator: the Sarah Connor Chronicles. Given his experience in playing various teen characters, his portrayal of Adam won't be a problem. Among all the kids, I like Faye (Phoebe Tonkin) the most. She's the type of bad girl you can't help but root for. I hope she is given more story and background in the succeeding episodes. With veteran actress Natasha Henstridge rounding up the cast, The Secret Circle is looking pretty solid acting-wise.

I realize now that the Secret Circle reminds me of Marvel Comics' The Runaways. The kids are on a path of self-discovery through their little group while the adults have their own plans for them. At the core, this show tackles being independent, growing up with these gifts, learning to control them, and dealing with the consequences of their actions.

The Secret Circle is obviously targeted towards a young audience so it is almost certain that usual elements of teen romance and anxiety will be present. However, with witchcraft being at the center of it all, it will be enough to keep older viewers interested. Besides, I don't think there's enough of a cheese atmosphere here to repel a wider audience. If magic is your cup of tea, look no further. If not, then I advise you to still stick around. After all, the pilot gives enough to wet the appetite. When witches are involved, you just don't know what's going to happen next.

Fright Night revolves around Charley Brewster (Anton Yelchin), a high school student adjusting to life as a popular kid as he deals with his relationships with his girlfriend Amy (Imogen Poots) and former best friend Ed (Christopher Mintz-Plasse). One day, he discovers that his next door neighbor Jerry (Colin Farrell) is a vampire, and things just spiral out of control from there.

Yes, this is a teen movie. However, before you shun this, there's one more word you should remember: vampires. Truthfully, without vampires, this would have been another production that we could have rightfully ignored. Fortunately, because of their inclusion, the film becomes accessible to young audiences but at the same time still gives enough incentive for other viewers. We are treated to an interesting blend of character self-discovery, romance, creature mayhem and liters of blood.

Physically speaking, vampires have many interpretations. For Fright Night, how the vampire looks like is captured effectively; not too monstrous, not too sexy, and definitely not sparkling. Effects are pretty decent. The film was able to visualize how tasty a human being can be (Not that we should try being cannibals anytime soon, but I'm just saying). Through the screen, you can feel the crunch of every bite that goes through the human flesh.

The film's take on vampires is traditional. It does not deviate that much from popular culture. For example, if you've been exposed to other material before, you would find the ways on how to kill a vampire very familiar. Although this does not make the film more unique, the simplicity is actually fun. For once, you don't have to worry about a vampire feature you may have missed out. That being said, the origin of Jerry was not explained that well. It was simply narrated. I understand that the focus of the story is how this boring neighborhood deals with such a being, but having a little more background would have been better.

Anton Yelchin has had many key supporting roles before such as Kyle Reese in Terminator Salvation (2009) and as Chekov in Star Trek (2009). This time around, he is put in the spotlight and he shows that there is star quality behind his name. British actress Imogen Poots (Centurion) is a relatively new face in American cinema, and after her performance in this film, it seems she has a brighter future ahead of her (and will have a lot more internet searches once guys get to watch this). Fans of Doctor Who will be delighted to see David Tennant (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire) play Peter Vincent, the celebrity vampire "expert" whom somehow reminds me of every Russell Brand character out there. Tennant shows his versatility as an actor and serves as the comic relief for the film. Colin Farrell (Alexander, The Recruit) proves that even though he is not the top go-to-guy for big budget Hollywood films, he can still play a villain right. Jerry the Vampire is the hunky neighbor, suspiciously calm fruit eater and 100 percent psycho killer.

If there's one thing that Fright Night could have improved on, it would have to be the number of suspense moments. I understand it is not supposed to be as scary as Paranormal Activity or a movie involving apparitions and ghosts, but it should at least have had a lot of scenes where the audience is left white and suddenly gripping the handle bars of the movie house chair. It is, after all, named Fright Night. What we get instead is heavy action – something that may sit well with some but leave others finding it too generic.

Fright Night is a valiant effort to fuse the problems of teenage anxiety and vampires trying to make you their next snack. The film is not for everyone, but is recommended specifically for those who just can't get enough of these creatures of the night (or teen movies, for that matter), people who miss all of the crazy things that they did back when they were young, or anyone looking for entertainment with a supernatural twist. I have to admit that there are lot of useless vampire, werewolf and zombie movies coming out nowadays. Thankfully, this is not one of them. Please give this one a shot if your schedule allows it.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo takes us into the investigation of one Harriet Vanger, who disappeared when she was just 16 years old and has been missing for the last 40 years. Still distraught about Harriet's case, her uncle, Henrik Vanger, hires troubled journalist Mikael Blomksvist to find out what happened. Along the way, he teams up with Lisbeth Salander, an eccentric hacker genius, and what they uncover is far worse than they could have ever imagined.

What is beautiful about this film is the simplicity of how it was made without it appearing cheap. It is proof that the lack of special effects doesn't make a film dull. In fact, it only makes other aspects shine. The movie is dialogue-driven, and a lot of things are explained through the conversations. It is quite unfortunate that I do not understand Swedish (and I had to use the subtitles while watching it) because I feel it would have been a better experience if I did.

Of course, behind these dialogues are the two leads Blomkvist and Salander. A recipe for a good movie is comprised of a compelling story, characters viewers can sympathize with and care about, and the interactions among these characters. For the most part, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is able to accomplish these things. Because of the film, I now understand why Noomi Rapace (Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows) has suddenly been propelled to the spotlight. Indeed, her performance as Lisbeth Salander is incredible. The late Stieg Larsson would have been proud of her interpretation of his title character. Salander is arguably the most unique female protagonist the industry has seen for a long time. From her looks to her personality, we see her as complex yet somebody we can understand, talented and so sure of herself and yet at the same time so awkward. Michael Nyqvist portrays Mikael Blomkvist with an air of confidence and authority that is just fitting for the character. We can understand why Salander, not big on trust, eventually warms up to him. If Salander is the loose cannon, then he is the straight arrow that holds the film together.

As a fan of the book, I believe this adaptation was able to give sufficient justice. Like in all adaptations, many elements of the story were changed. However, most of these changes were done for a smoother flow and for a more viewer-friendly experience.

Later this year, David Fincher will be making a Hollywood version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Even with stars Daniel Craig and Robin Wright attached to the project, it must pack a wallop so they can surpass the high standard that this Swedish production has set. Truly, this film has made me want to venture more into European cinema and find all the wonders it has to offer.

The Verdict: The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a dark, gritty, excellently-done crime drama that others will try to emulate but probably won't be able to. That being said, it is not for everyone and not for the faint of heart. There is a reason that this is Rated R. The movie is very long compared to the running time of most movies coming out recently. Thus, in order to fully enjoy and appreciate this gem, one must be patient. Everything shall fall into place and in the end, you will discover that it was one of the best ways to spend 150 minutes of your time. Trust me when I say that watching the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is an intelligent, heart-wrenching, unforgettable experience.

Ever think that if you're attacked by an aggressive ape, throwing a banana can distract it? Think again.

In Rise of the Planet of the Apes, in an effort to cure Alzheimer's disease, Will Rodman (James Franco) and the company he works for develop a drug that greatly enhances the intelligence of apes, paving the way for a world run by them.

The thing with prequels is you generally know how it's going to end. That is why it's a prequel – it sets up the stage for the events which occur in the previous movie. What matters here then is the presentation of the story, and Rupert Wyatt was successful in that aspect. We gradually see how Caesar grows from a smart baby ape to an independent leader of his kind. All in all, the movie was far from boring. Although the first part of the film might be a bit dragging for those who do not like all talk, the second part has enough action (not mindless violence) to make up for it. The special effects were done well. It was such a treat to watch the showdown between humans and apes in great detail.

What is likable about this science fiction feature is that it does not go far from our planet to show us one what-if doomsday scenario. We don't have to look for an alien invasion because they are already here living among us – APES. It takes the general idea that apes are smarter than your normal animal and transforms them into a force to be reckoned with. The film makes us shudder to think if such a thing is really scientifically plausible.

I have neither watched Planet of the Apes (2001) nor the originals so I cannot compare them. Regardless, I believe that Rise of the Planet of the Apes is simply rich with meaning. It tackles the need for equality and treating each other with respect, being free and belonging, and the difference between asking permission and taking the initiative. In a way, apes are shown to possess more humane qualities than the people around them; these creatures are aware of what's going on while men try to shoot at anything they don't understand. Throughout the film, we realize that the apes' taking over is just a product of people's desire for more. Man's overconfidence is, without a doubt, deadlier than anything else and is in fact the real enemy.

On another note, the movie is further proof that fictional pharmaceutical companies doing experiments mean BAD things are going to happen. One minute it's your neighbor, then the next it's you.

James Franco, aside from possibly playing the most handsome scientist in Hollywood history, has once again proved that he has the skills to play just about any type of character. Although Rise centers on the presence of the apes, he carries this film with ease. Freida Pinto of Slumdog Millionaire fame plays Franco's girlfriend and veterinarian, Caroline Aranha. I expected her character to have a more significant part but she was mainly there to flesh out the relationship of Franco and his ape friend. David Oyelowo's character Jacobs is shaky – at first he seems concerned about the safety of the tests, and then he suddenly forgets all about protocol. Of course, Andy Serkis deserves praise for yet another memorable performance. Forget about Gollum; everyone who watches this film will remember the amazing ape that is Caesar.

The title of the film bothers me the most though. It's too long, and they should have just made it "Rise of the Apes" and people would have still understood the connection. Well, there you have it. If one can't think of anything else to dislike except the title, then it must have been one hell of an experience watching it.

It was.

Yes, another high-production, superhero movie invades the theatres. Should you watch it?

Captain America: The First Avenger is an action-adventure movie that shows us the transformation of one Steve Rogers from a scrawny but patriotic man during World War II to Captain America, the star-spangled icon of freedom. Equipped with the Super-Soldier serum and his desire to do good, he finds the strength to combat Hydra, a Nazi offshoot, and its deranged leader, Johann Schmidt.

To a great extent, the First Avenger succeeds in translating the essence of its title character to the big screen. Captain America is portrayed as a humble guy who just wants to serve his country, so much so that he goes to great lengths to do it. Although there are minor changes to his comic book origin, who Captain America is is preserved. Steve Rogers may have said that he's "just a kid from Brooklyn," but he is definitely so much more than that. He is the hero whom people look up to, and whom superheroes aspire to be. Captain America may not have the coolest powers but is relatable in so many levels.

It is becoming a trend in movies today to have a complicated plot in order to tell a good story. However, the First Avenger's approach, which centers on Captain America fighting the good fight, is pretty straightforward. The film proves that you don't need gazillion mind-boggling things to tell an inspiring tale of an extraordinary soldier on the frontlines. Being a superhero movie set in a war zone, it offers a healthy dose of action and involves Captain America bashing enemy heads and throwing his signature shield more times than you can count. Scenes of romance and humor help the film to become balanced and entertaining to watch. Steve is also a nice break from the morally conflicted heroes we usually encounter. He is simply someone who is moved to do what is right—nothing more, nothing less.

Aside from the excellent character development and story progression, the film also boasts a solid cast. I honestly had doubts about Chris Evans playing the captain because he was such a fit for the cocky yet strong-willed Johnny Storm aka the Human Torch in the Fantastic Four movies, but he gives a convincing performance. Hugo Weaving as the menace Red Skull doesn't disappoint either, although we are still sure to remember him best as Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy. Hayley Atwell's portrayal of Peggy Carter has a sense of both hardiness and elegance which makes the character easy to love.

As someone who consistently follows Captain America's exploits in comic books, my admiration for the character has increased even more because of the First Avenger. The film gives fans everywhere a good show. I especially liked that they were able to incorporate the printing of a Captain America comic book in a world where he really exists. The punching of "Hitler" in the face never gets old!

During the course of Captain America: The First Avenger, viewers are shown how to be a patriot through Cap's positive demeanor and outlook. In the end, we come to realize that the film deals with fighting for the things we love – freedom, country, friend and even one's own potential to do great things. The ending of the film may have been a bit abrupt, but it definitely points to a sequel. In this case, The Avengers (2012) is just around the corner, and it is something that we should watch if we want more of our Captain America.

Yes, another high-production, superhero movie invades the theatres. Should you watch it?

Of course. There is no other option.

Green Lantern takes us into the story of one Hal Jordan, a charming but irresponsible test pilot who rises up to the challenge when he gets to be given a ring of immense power. With this, he becomes part of the Green Lantern Corps, sworn protectors of worlds and galaxies.

It is hard to write a review about something when all that surrounds it is negativity. However, for the next sentences, I shall put on my hat of fairness, give it my best shot, and go over the film point by point.

All superhero movies should have sufficient portions showcasing the awesome abilities of their title character. Fortunately, this film had a decent amount of action. Objects formed through Hal's ring were very creative and blended well with the environment. Although Thor's Asgard was a more impressive sight, the Green Lantern home world Oa was a unique experience already.

No matter what you say about the plot of Green Lantern, it is certain that the humanity of Hal Jordan was central to the movie, if not overly emphasized. With all the aliens from the other sectors around him, he seems so small and insignificant and yet he manages to overcome this and prove that he is worthy to be part of the Corps. This presentation allows viewers to relate to him --- just a troubled, regular guy who has his heart in the right place.

For me, highlighting the Green Lantern Oath was one of the best decisions they made. It was able to describe what a Green Lantern is with a few well-chosen words. Let's face it; it's short, catchy, makes a lot of sense and fun to recite. After watching the film, I have found myself repeatedly imagining there's an emerald ring on my finger and reciting the oath. Seriously!

Sinestro was nicely done by Mark Strong (Sherlock Holmes). He is such a self-righteous character that he makes you want to reach through the screen and tear his mustache off. If there will be a Green Lantern 2, you are sure to see more of him.

All and all, having a Green Lantern movie made helped the average person know more about such an interesting hero. Being part of the Justice League core together with Batman and Superman, he deserves to be appreciated and celebrated by more people. With that said, let us evaluate the reasons why appreciation towards the film might be hard to do.

Even after watching the movie, it is still hard to fully accept Ryan Reynolds as the Green Lantern. For some reason, he just doesn't fit the bill. However, note that Justin Timberlake almost became Green Lantern at some point, so going with Reynolds actually allowed them to dodge an even bigger bullet.Blake Lively has had a lot of exposure with dramas like Gossip Girl and The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, but is she ready for something like Green Lantern?

What is the direction of the film, anyway? The first trailer featured a happy Hal Jordan, and then the second one was as serious as hell. This kind of mixed emotions will confuse viewers, which will then lead to a lower quality movie and lower ticket sales. There is a comedy vibe present, but somehow it makes the story seem shallow when the whole world is supposed to be at stake. Character development could have been improved if we had a peek of how Hal, Carol and Hector grew up together, or if we were shown more of the relationship between Hal and his father at the beginning of the film. How was Hal growing up? Lantern could have been like Iron Man, lauded by fans and critics alike, but it falls short.

Let us talk about the villains. Hector Hammond is not only one of the ugliest villains ever but also one of the most useless. Aside from giving Abomination (The Incredible Hulk) a run for his money in terms of "attractiveness," he could not elicit interest from me. His powers were not explained enough. I get the basics of telekinesis and telepathy, so why was Hammond unable to know what Green Lantern was thinking? And no, Hal having a strong will should not affect mind reading. After all this, it seems just right that Hammond came from another equally if not more disappointing villain called Parallax. He is a floating mass of gunk revealed to have originated from a being of great intelligence and ability (no names to avoid spoilers). If that is so, then why was he so easily duped by Hal?

Green Lantern is not a bad movie. Yes, I said it, and I am not taking it back. There's such a thing called building too much expectation for a movie, and this film falls victim to it. However, you can't really blame viewers for having this kind of mentality when you've spent a whole lot of dollars promoting it. Still, people who say that this is the worst superhero movie ever is entitled to their opinions but are not necessarily right. Are they saying that Blade: Trinity (which amusingly also stars Reynolds), Jonah Hex, and Hulk (2003) are better? I don't think so.

Even though I don't know a lot about Green Lantern, I find his character colorful and I wanted the film to be great. I really did. A shallow execution of the storyline, uninteresting villains, shaky casting and a whole list of other things prevent it from happening. However, Green Lantern packs enough gas to warrant a watch. Go for it if you 1) watch movies as a hobby, 2) want to be entertained, 3) are tired of the usual heroes populating the big screen, 4) have the hots for Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, and 5) can squeeze in a hundred minutes into your busy schedule.

Mr. Popper's Penguins tells the story of Popper (Jim Carrey), a successful and ambitious property agent who gets sent six penguins by his estranged father. These new arrivals quickly turn his life into an arctic mess, which at first horrifies him but then slowly teaches him about what he's missing out in life. These little fellows may, after all, bring out the best in him.

Now, before anything is said about anything else, let me just say that the penguins featured in this film were beyond adorable. It was pure joy to see them filling up the big screen with their antics. They slide, dance, squawk, peck, swim, fly (yes, wait for that part) – they do almost everything! Mr. Popper's features animals letting loose and showing us how great they are. Given all the animated productions made every year, the film is able to prove that you can still make live-action family comedies that actually work. It is a genuine breath of fresh air to see real animals being entertaining without actors having to voice them over. Unlike Happy Feet or Surf's up (the most recent significant titles that featured penguins), it did not need to humanize the penguins to show emotion and character, and that is one of the great things about the production.

As mentioned above, this is a film for the family. Dynamics between members of the family were clearly displayed (Popper and his father, Popper and his ex-wife and kids), and it also showed how Popper's children were dealing with the broken family situation. Hearty and heavy moments were evenly distributed throughout the movie, which made it engaging enough for the audience. Although the plot could be a little too fantastic and convenient at some points, the penguins suddenly jump into focus and they remind us that we are not there to judge; we are there to enjoy.

Mr. Popper's surprises us with a talented cast behind it. Jim Carrey (Liar Liar) goes back to what he does best – comedy. Although Mr. Popper's character is far from being Ace Ventura or the Mask, one can't help but notice that there's a sense of funny-crazy in him too (the slow motion bit was hilarious), which makes him all the more entertaining and likable. Starring opposite is Carla Gugino (Sin City, Sucker Punch) who is no stranger to family comedies because of her role as the mother spy in the Spy Kids franchise. Supporting performances were also key to the movie's success. It was funny seeing Clark Gregg (Iron Man, Thor) as Carrey's adversary, while Angela Lansbury, Jeffrey Tambor (Arrested Development) and Madeline Carroll (Flipped) were vital in fleshing out more about Popper's character. I especially liked Ophelia Lovibond as Popper's assistant. Her P problem was highly amusing, and applause should be given to the scriptwriters for coming up with her lines. Perturbance! In the Philippines, many people were not aware about Mr. Popper's Penguins until a few weeks before its release. There was not much buzz or hype created around the film, which I suppose is also true for the other markets it opened in. This may be a disastrous situation for Hollywood blockbusters nowadays, but for this film, it is just right. While Mr. Popper's is a generally fun experience and a delight to watch, its cute appeal will not attract everyone. It may not be noticed in the slew of summer movies coming out this year, but it is worth a watch for those looking for good, wholesome laughs and a solid stress buster.

Trailers, television spots and advertising materials like billboards usually give the viewers a pretty good idea of what a film is going to be about. Usually. In Super 8's case, they just make you wonder more how it will play out. There are just a few things you are sure of: 1) A group of kids are shooting a movie, 2) A train goes unbelievably bonkers and obliterates everything on its path while they're shooting, 3) A life form inside the train gets out and 4) All hell breaks loose. Not even the reason for the title Super 8 is given away. This is a gamble that may or may not pay off. Clearly, the appeal of the unknown can work for or against its success. Which C do you care about more, curiosity or clarity? Thankfully, watching the film makes us discover that the plot is not that complicated after all, which is not necessarily a good or a bad thing.

To limit the spoilers in this review, I will plainly say that Super 8 tells a story of teenage awakening with a monster movie backdrop. Aside from the explosions and pandemonium, it features a lot of emotion and humor – just like how everyday life is. The film shows us that even if something bizarre happens, life goes on. The only difference is that normal people do extraordinary things when faced with something that they don't understand. At the end of it all, it's not the specialists that triumph but it's people like you and me. What makes Super 8 stand out from your regular monster movie is that although it is about a very serious and dangerous situation, kids are at the helm. Given all of these things, the film becomes more accessible to a wider audience. Although it may alienate hardcore sci-fi fans, Super 8 ends up as a way cooler version of your average family movie.

Super 8's plot accomplishes much. However, based on the hype that was built around it, watching it leaves you with a sense that it could have been so much more than it was. Moreover, there was not enough explanation about why erratic behaviors were everywhere (technology going haywire, dogs losing their minds).

In terms of performances, the cast of Super 8 proves that you don't need all-star actors to tell a good story. The most recognizable actor here was Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights), who is, after all, not new to the monster movie scene after playing the self-absorbed actor in King Kong (2005). Interestingly enough, Super 8 has a lot of common with King Kong, things I will let you find out for yourselves. Joel Courtney as a protagonist was very convincing as a small town boy trying to cope with his mother's death, and at the same time figuring out his relationship with his deputy sheriff father (Chandler) and with his friend Alice (Elle Fanning). Careers of both Courtney and Fanning will surely skyrocket because of this production.

Over the years, J.J. Abrams has created and revamped a lot of material. One can't help but remember Cloverfield when watching Super 8. Of course, the monster-video camera tandem was present in both films. Fortunately, the comparison stops there. Super 8 has a lot more story to it, and has many characters you just can't help but sympathize with. Additionally, there is no immediate need to barf after watching the film since unlike Cloverfield, it isn't filmed with a shaky camera the entire time. Going back to Abrams, there is no doubting his genius. He created Alias, which received a huge following and propelled Jennifer Garner to stardom, and revived the Star Trek franchise with his 2009 theatrical version. However, not everything can be a hit, as evidenced by his recently-canceled show called Undercovers, and by the reception that he got from major Star Trek fans calling him the "Star Trek Killer." Whatever you think of him, the man certainly knows how to entertain, and we can expect a lot more things from this guy.

Finally, at the end of the credits, we discover what Super 8 is. However, after watching the film, knowing the title does not matter that much anymore since we realize that the journey of how we got there is enough to leave the cinema feeling good about ourselves, and feeling good in general. I recommend this film for people who have taste.

For those familiar with the X-Men movie franchise, X-Men: First Class is like drinking a glass of iced tea on a sunny day --- a nice break from all the complicated things that happened in the previous four movies. For first time viewers, it's a ticket to an alternate world full of beauty and hate, a world full of hope and fear.

This is an example of a movie that was actually better than the trailer, an achievement in today's age of overly-hyped productions. First Class knew where it was headed and what points to hit. At the opening scene, we are sucked into young Magneto suffering at the hands of Nazis. Although this almost identical scene was already shown in the first X-Men movie, this gives us a chance to see where the struggle for mutant survival starts. Throughout the film, this struggle boils up and finally leads to the inevitable confrontation between humans and mutants. Matthew Vaughn did a great job in not making the film a teen whining fest. Instead, we are treated to a nice blend of action and story which makes you anticipate what will happen next. The cast of characters is diverse; some favorites like Mystique are brought back while lesser-known mutants like Banshee are given a chance to shine.

This could hardly be called a breakout role for Michael Fassbender (300) given his performance in other films, but it sure has elevated his status to lead role material. He portrays Magneto with a deadly charm that actually makes you root for him. James McAvoy also did a solid job as Professor X. However, I cannot help but feel that First Class sympathizes more with Magneto than Professor X. We know of Magneto's past, and the movie focuses a great deal on his revenge against Shaw, but what about Xavier? We see him as a child, but not much more about his life that would make his character more interesting.

The X-Men have always been a symbol of non-conformity, and that aspect is fleshed out excellently in First Class. In a world where being different is frowned upon, there are just these few who just stick out even they do not want to. Another good point of the film was that it was able to tackle the side of the humanity. Because humans are naturally resistant to change, they attack and try to eliminate something that they don't understand. In the end, they get to accomplish a sense of warped unity born out of fear, at the cost of alienating another group of species, the "homo superior." In a sense, First Class also shows humanity's own struggle for survival.

Close-minded comic book fans may tend to dislike the film, seeing that it has deviated a lot from canon. For one, Beast is the only original X-Man (aside from Charles Xavier) featured in this film. However, this has opened a lot of doors for other people to actually get interested in the history of the group, a history so rich that it is almost impossible for a casual viewer not to be immersed in the lives of these mutants who just want to be who they were destined to be. Some may call this industry move mainstreaming, but being a comic book fan myself, I'd like to think of it as a big shout out to everyone that superhero movies have heart and are not just venues for amazing special effects.

There was great expectation for X-Men: First Class, and for the most part, it has delivered. It proves there are a lot more stories to tell about these accidental heroes and villains, stories which will keep us at the edge of our seats and will make us crave for a whole lot more.

InSecurity centers on NISA (an intelligence agency in Canada) agents who try to do their best in serving their country in spite of their uncanny ability to always get into trouble. All of them seem to have a large amount of... Yes, you guessed it. InSecurity.

Before watching the pilot episode, I read a viewer comment that the show is like NBC's Chuck. I understand where that person was coming from, since both of them are action comedies centered on secret government agencies. However, the similarities stop there. This production is very low budget (which is not really a bad thing if a show is done in the right manner). It's not heavy on action (a kick, several takedowns and a single significant bullet fired near the end were featured) and instead relies on awkward humor and funny conversations to carry the flow.

You really have to dumb yourself down to watch it properly and enjoy it, which is not really such a bad thing if you just want to have a few laughs for half an hour. However, if you're a fan of spy series, this is definitely not the show for you since you'd be irritated at how stupid the characters can get. There are definitely a lot of things to improve on, like the quality of acting present. I also hope they give the characters redeeming attributes so it would be a bit believable that these people were really qualified to be operatives in the first place.

One of the bright spots of InSecurity is Natalie Lisinka, who plays team leader Alex Cranston. She was a treat to watch in the first episode, and I'm looking forward to seeing more of her soon.

InSecurity is far from perfect but it is actually quite entertaining. As I said earlier, you just have to let your mind rest and give yourself a break. Don't take it too seriously and you'll feel good after watching it. An episode can only tell you so much, so based on what I've seen so far, I think I'm going to catch the next one and give this show a chance.

How about you?

"Have a piece of your friend." Basically, the Reaper virus spreads throughout a city in England, and the government quarantine the area, trapping all the residents, infected and non-infected alike. Decades after, the virus appears elsewhere, and they are forced to send back a team to find a cure, if there is indeed one. So here we are again at a post-apocalyptic scenario full of blood, infection, cannibalism, and of course, politics. Fortunately, Doomsday does not disappoint in fusing them together, making the film quite entertaining to watch. Like Dawn of the Dead, it does not show how the virus started, but focuses on the aftermath; how everyone coped with the situation in order to survive.

Rhona Mitra is Major Eden Sinclair, the mission leader with nothing to lose. She displays yet again that she can do action, and more importantly, carry the flow of a film. It is always a delight to see her punish those who get in her way. Seeing her here has inspired me to look for her other works and material.

One of the high points of this movie is how it manages to show the different types of things one looks for in an action movie and not feel awkward doing it. It features lots of gunfire, car chase scenes, medieval sword fights, massive pandemonium on the streets, you name it. By doing so, it is also able to veer away from being a generic gore fest, which seems to be pretty common nowadays. Having seen The Descent and Centurion (both under the direction of Neil Marshall), it seems that this director really likes his blood. True enough, Doomsday does not tone it down. Other viewers might think that this is an exaggeration, but I believe it is an integral part in showing how serious the events are, and in keeping you glued to your seats. Besides, the violence does not get to a ridiculous point like Machete's.

On the surface, the film seems a bit shallow and might be mistaken for just an avenue for another man versus the infected type of thing. However, Doomsday makes us aware of something very important: If one day, the world does go to hell, we're sure of two things which are going to happen: chaos, and the emergence of new systems that take advantage of this chaos.

Blood, infection, cannibalism and politics. What more do you want? Doomsday is your gateway to having a very entertaining and exhilarating 100-minute experience.

Just Peck lets us into the life of Michael Peck (Peck, for short), a shy high school student who, because of his parents' eccentric parenting skills, ends up competing in the class science fair. Inspired by his undeniable attraction to Emily, a popular girl in school, he sets off on a journey to create the best project he can think of, which unfortunately, will create more problems for his already complicated life.

Peck's character is what drives the film. He's not your usual underdog kid who has no redeeming attribute whatsoever. He's not that smart but he knows enough. Most of the time, he is very awkward; he doesn't seem to be comfortable with what he's doing. However, he's someone who knows what to say and when to say it, something that catches Emily's attention. Although its central character is a teenager, the presence of profanity and drug usage alone are enough clues that Just Peck is not your average movie about a kid. Instead, we are shown how a simple boy copes with growing up, and how we may have forgotten that it's really not that simple.

The movie is full of funny dialogue. It doesn't go out of its way to be funny like some comedy movies. Its awkward situations are enough to make you laugh every now and then. Peck's parents were hilarious in this film; they provided the much-needed comic relief when things were getting too intense. During Peck's presentation of his science project, there is a moment where it seems that Peck has finally revealed his true colors. The film could have gone anywhere from there, and so it is able to keep its viewers guessing and hanging on to every scene. Not being predictable and clichéd was definitely a strong point of the film.

Kier Gilchrist and Brie Larson of United States of Tara star as the main characters in this movie, and they are able to prove through their solid performances that they can definitely shine given the chance.

If you think about it, it's a loser kid/popular girl dynamic which we have seen so many times already, but Just Peck manages to rehash it in a way that it becomes interesting and lovable to watch. A good film should tell a unique, entertaining story, and that is what Just Peck is able to accomplish. It doesn't make you all fuzzy inside, but it does make you dish out one full, honest smile.

Video game adaptations have had negative reviews since time immemorial. Before going in to watch Tekken, I actually read a review that would repel any non-fan of the game. Since I don't agree with everything that critics write down, I decided to see for myself.

Maybe low expectations affected how I found the film, but honestly, I liked it. What is something that you would like to see in a movie based on a fighting video game? Well, obviously, some serious fighting. Although some scenes of this nature were very short, Tekken is able to entertain us with its characters getting inside the ring and displaying their different skills. Somehow, you can also never go wrong with hot women beating each other with fists and looking fabulous while doing it.

If this film suffers from anything, it's the mediocre plot that it presents us with. It is common for a video game adaptation to be plagued by a so-so storyline, and it is something that Tekken does not escape. In the end, the revenge storyline has been played out so many times that it just becomes a venue for blood and violence. However, at the end of the movie, we are shown that there is room for a sequel , and that's something I'm looking forward to. I am hoping that more characters are introduced next time around.

I am putting it out in the open that I haven't played the game that much, so I don't know if it is faithful to how Tekken is supposed to be. What I can say is that if you're craving for a dose of action and adrenaline, this is worth checking out.

You can do a lot of sight-seeing in Rome. There is so much history to the place that a few days ' visit does not do the city justice. And yet, just a few moments and you'll get to absorb the scenery already. In "When In Rome," it even just takes 48-hour stay to get to a wonderful (and this case, magical) site: a fountain which grants wishes of the heart. And because of this, the lives of boy and girl just get crazy.

Kristen Bell and Josh Duhamel are not really big names when it comes to romantic comedies, but they manage to pull this one off. The two of them had great chemistry throughout the movie. Together with a supporting cast who are experts on being hilarious (Jon Heder, Will Arnett, etc.), they made their characters entertaining and fun to watch.

Nothing is really extraordinary about the plot though. There are story elements which we have seen before (a successful career woman who is unlucky with love, a supernatural event happens suddenly to disrupt her current situation). For me, it is not that unique, but it does the trick in keeping us interested by showing us just how far the spelled guys would go in order to grab Beth's attention.

"When In Rome" is definitely not a must-watch for everyone. Although it has its flaws, it does what a romantic comedy is supposed to do: make people believe in love and laugh at the same time, a straight-arrow, feel-good movie with a fairytale ending.

Line that Stuck: "You smell like lavender... You smell like livestock."

"From Paris With Love." When you hear this title, you can't be blamed if you think this is the name of another romantic movie. After all, it has both the words Paris and love. However, this action flick shows us a different side of Paris, and of course, a different kind of loving – one filled with bullets, fists, explosions and cursing.

John Travolta was excellent as the gun-wielding, ass-kicking Charlie Wax. Sure, we already know about his talent and his ability to play a wide range of characters, but it was nice to see him as a good guy again (or at least gray on the side of good). His co-star Jonathan Rhys Meyers did a pretty good job as well as the newbie James Reece; his pairing with Travolta was very fitting. Their banter/dialogue added spice to the film, and their reactions towards one another were quite entertaining. Especially funny was the stairs scene where every few seconds Reece had to watch out for falling bodies gunned down by Wax.

The movie is fun and exciting, fast-paced and yet something that you can still understand. However, it does have its flaws. Some aspects of the story were not very developed. For example, it was not really explained that much why Caroline did what she did, how she was fulfilling her "purpose" by doing so, what happened to her six years ago, etc. It would have been better if the side of the enemies were explained more, but I guess that was not the focus of the film. Additionally, for a secret agent, Wax seemed not to be careful his line of work. I suppose it is part of how he works, but initiating shootouts in public places and leaving bodies in his wake are not some matters that can be easily smoothed out by diplomacy.

Although it is definitely not one of the films that you'll want to keep watching over and over again, the film doesn't disappoint in giving the audience what it needs: a heavy dose of action to take your mind off whatever it is that is keeping you stressed at the moment. You don't watch From Paris With Love to think; you watch it to see two crazy guys blasting bad people away to save the day. Plain and simple.

Although the narrator makes a disclaimer at the start of the movie about it not being a love story, 500 Days of Summer can be easily said as one of the best romantic films of the year. Sure, the premise seems normal enough, but it manages to present itself in a different light, something that's fun to watch and at the same time actually something you can relate to.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is pretty convincing as Tom, the love-struck protagonist of the tale. The always adorable Zooey Deschanel plays Summer, his love interest who just wants their relationship to be "casual." Watching their times together is like a trip down memory lane, proving that a lot can happen in 500 days, some you would want to keep on remembering while others you would rather bury.

I do not know much about the director Marc Webb, but seeing 500 Days of Summer has made me a believer. He uses a lot of techniques to flesh out certain ideas (the dance number in the park was a delight to see) or emphasize situations (that Expectation and Reality bit was ingenious) that normally would have been just treated as just another scene. These contributions make the film very engaging, somehow doing better than the special effects commonly found in action pieces.

All and all, 500 Days of Summer is a movie which really hits the spot. Its brutal honesty about life, love and relationships combined with the right elements of romance and humor gets its audience captivated every single second of its running time.

Of course, not everyone can get the sort of happy ending of Tom right away, but it gives people hope that they're somehow headed towards that direction. It gives consolation to those who always blame themselves for things turning out badly. The truth is, as the film points out, sometimes, stuff just happen and you have to learn how to let go.

Oh, and did I mention it has a really wonderful soundtrack? Yes it does. So if you were not able to catch it in the cinemas, please make sure to get the DVD. With a movie like this one, the more you watch, the more you will understand what its message is.

I have to admit, the trailer was pretty amusing. In a world where cell phones are everywhere, it's scary to be monitored that way. Your every move watched.

For me, there was enough action sequences in the film, and they did a good job with the location shoots. However, the movie was just okay. Not totally bad, but not spectacular either. Although it had a pretty decent cast, with Shane West (A Walk To Remember, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) as the lead character of the film and Ving Rhames (Mission Impossible III, Dawn of the Dead), Edward Burns (27 Dresses) and Martin Sheen (Spawn, the Departed) as his support, there were many minor bits and pieces that made me raise an eyebrow.

First, as already mentioned by others, why was the FBI on foreign soil? I'm no expert on the matter, but I think another government agency should have been responsible in the investigation. Additionally, why didn't anybody at the Prague Casino notice West wearing an earpiece while gambling? It sounds common sense to me that they would see it as a way of cheating. Local law enforcement was also practically non-existent, and it seemed as if they were still in the United States, having shootouts and cars blowing up without anybody getting in the way.

The whole side story with Yuri was a surprise. It puts Russia in a good light, and that's something you don't see very often in Hollywood movies.

All and all, after watching the whole film, Echelon Conspiracy really reminds you of Eagle Eye, only it's with a simpler plot and a smaller budget. And if you only got two hours to watch a movie about high-tech computers and government conspiracies, then I would recommend you pick the latter for your viewing pleasure.