JOHNNY ENGLISH REBORN (2011)

MyRating: Y1/2

Director: Oliver Parker

Cast: Rowan Atkinson, Gillian Anderson, Rosamund Pike, Dominic West, Daniel Kaluuya, Pik-Sen Lim, Richard Schiff, Mark Ivanir

MPAA: Rated PG for mild action violence, rude humor, some language and brief sensuality

Rowan Atkinson is back with his another greater-than-life adventure as Johnny English in a James Bond spoof comedy, which will make you think again if you think that tough, smart, fast, good in fighting and great with women, are the perfect criteria that makes Bond a great secret agent, as Johnny English will proof to you that dumb, clumsy, slow, silly and ignorance are actually the key. So, you may have to forget about Daniel Craig.

After failing an important mission in Mozambique, Johnny English takes a retreat to China to do some introspection for his mistakes and learns martial arts to toughen himself. But when his country needs him for a new mission in order to stop a group of international assassins, named itself as 'Vortex', before they could kill the Chinese Prime Minister and cause worldwide chaos, Johnny English has to come back to his country and resume his role one more time as the MI7 Secret Agent. And he gets himself into another dangerous adventure, without fear of losing his life, in order to serve his country and to save the world. Why they choose him? Because he is the best secret agent available. So, forget about James Bond.

I like Rowan Atkinson and his popular TV Series Mr. Bean (1990-1995). We can say that Atkinson is a natural-born comedian (even though personally he is a quiet and very introvert person) and the character of Mr. Bean is already a legend that will be forever remembered as one of England's finest and iconic comedy. Even though I loved Mr. Bean TV series, as it was very funny and terrific, but the two Mr. Bean movies, Bean (1997) and Mr. Bean Vacation (2007), didn't really work for me. In my opinion, the movie versions were never successful in bringing the full hilarity of Mr. Bean to the big screen as the way I fell for the character in the TV series.

I never watch the first Johnny English (2003) movie, so I went to this sequel with an open mind with the expectation of getting a good comedy, as I might use some good laughs. But I regret to say that the movie hardly made me laugh, as the more the story goes, the more I felt boring and yawned. The comedy worked so slow and too indolent for me, as if I have to wait before I could smile, and before I could laugh, I realized that there was actually nothing really funny to be laughed about. Indeed, the movie were not funny with too many slapstick jokes and very predictable comedy. The dialogs didn't help either, which tried to be funny, but ended up not. And I blame all this to the weak script, the same I blamed the failures of all Mr. Bean's big screen movies to the bad screenplays.

If you are a fan of Mr. Bean and you happened to like this movie, then I know you may not be agreed with me. But this movie did work so wrong for me in every level and I have to honestly say that it was an unfunny disaster. It's a shame that Rowan Atkinson, who I think is a great comedian, never could really show his comedic greatness in the big screen due to, again and again, bad scripts. (MJ)

MYMOVIE CRITIC - REVIEWING MOVIES FROM THE AUDIENCE'S STANDPOINT

KITES (2010)

MyRating: Y

Director: Anurag Basu
Cast: Hrithik Roshan, Barbara Mori, Nicholas Brown, Kabir Bedi, Kangana Ranaut, Yuri Suri, Anand Tiwari, Steven Michael Guezada

This is the third Bollywood movie I watched this year, after My Name is Khan (2010) and 3 Idiots (2009). I was excited to see Kites because of many reasons. First, I loved the other two movies a lot, which have great stories and great casts (Shahrukh Khan in My Name is Khan and Aamir Khan in 3 Idiots), and both movies have given me a wonderful time in the cinema. Second, this movie (Kites) has a very strong name too, Hrithik Roshan, Bollywood most popular leading actor after Shahrukh Khan's generation. Third, Kites was the first Bollywood movie that reached the Top Ten of US Weekend Box Office (period May 21-23, 2010). And a high score in Rotten Tomatoes from the critics even convinced me more.

But somehow after watching it, I felt very disappointed with this movie. If you happened to like Kites, just consider my review as another opinion, because as I have said before, not all people have the same taste. One person's rotten egg maybe another person's star. That always happened when talking about like or dislike about a movie. And every person can be true with his opinion. But I will tell you why this movie didn't work for me.

The story is about a smart young man, J (Roshan) who thirst to become rich and dating a rich girl, Gina (Ranaut), whose father, Bob (Bedi), is one of the richest men in Las Vegas, who owns casino. But J is falling for his girlfriend's brother's fiancee, Natasha (Mori), a Mexican imigrant. Not only that is a cardinal sin, but also it is the most fatal sin, as his girlfriend's family's business is similar to that of a mob, that punishes the cheaters in their casino with death penalties. And when Gina's brother, Tony (Brown), finds out about J and Natasha's affair, he and his family's gang members hunt them all the way to the desert of Mexico.

You have heard this kind of story many times before? It's a cliche one. But that's not a problem for me, because I can love even the most cliche story, as long as the filmmaker can turn it into a beautiful and enjoyable movie. And this one was not. The story didn't work for me at all. I think both the script and the directing were unsuccessful. The story was slow in progress and somehow boring. The flashbacks (actually it was back and forth in the storytelling) was not worked and directed well, it was a bit confusing. The actions were silly and too forced. And the ending of the movie was just ridiculous.

For the actors, I don't think the chemistry between Hrithik Roshan and Barbara Mori, the American Latin leading actress, was working well. I actually didn't feel the chemistry. It's not because their actings were bad. Not at all. Hrithik Roshan surely has his charm and he did not play his role bad, and Barbara Mori is beautiful. I think maybe their characters, who don't know each other's language in this movie, was one of the cause. It somehow stole the romantic away.

Many people may think that the dance in the beginning of the movie by Hrithik Roshan was awesome and spectacular. I agree that the dance was good. But I just cannot feel it. Why? Because it was shown too early in the movie before we even got to know the character well. If you like Step Up and Step Up 2 (the guilty pleasure movies that many critics hated, but I liked the movies), you will understand how the climax dances really work in amazed you, because they were shown at the very end of the movies, after we knew what we have to know about the characters. But of course the Hrithik Roshan's dance could not be moved into the end of this movie, because this is just not a dance movie. But that's the only way I can explain why the dance didn't work for me. It was not excited me as the songs and the dances in 3 Idiots and My Name is Khan did.

While watching this movie, the stars in my head kept falling down as the story progressed, and the ending was the lowest point. Maybe people won't care for my stars (of review). But that was exactly how I felt when watching this movie.

Again, don't feel discourage by my review. If you are interested in seeing this movie, because you love Indian movies or you love Hrithik Roshan, just go for it! You maybe will have a different feeling and opinion from me. And if you happen to like it, then just consider my review as a silly one. But if you happen to hate it, then we are on the same boat. (MJ)

A NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET (2010)

MyRating: Y1/2

Director: Samuel Bayer
Cast: Jackie Earle Haley, Rooney Mara, Kyle Gallner, Katie Cassidy, Thomas Dekker, Kellan Lutz
MPAA: Rated R for strong bloody horror violence, disturbing images, terror and language

A bunch of teenagers living in Elm Street, Dean (Lutz), Kris (Cassidy), Jesse (Dekker), Nancy (Mara) and Quentin (Gallner) are terrorized by extremely terrified nightmares over and over again. In their dreams, they are hunting by a scary and ugly man with burned-scars all over his body and face, wearing a red and green striped sweater, a fedora hat, and a glove with long-sharp razor-knives in his fingers. Once they fall asleep, that boogeyman will appear in their dreams and ready to kill them.

When one of them died tragically in his dream, the four remaining friends just realize that they are actually having the same dreams and being hunted by the same man in their dreams. And they start to uncover a very dark secret kept by their parents for years, that links all of them together in the past, when they were kids, with a man named Freddy Kruger (Haley). Freddy was brutally killed by their parents and their society because of the wrongdoing that he did. Now, this man comes back to take revenges, in their dreams. And the way to stay alive, is to stay awake.

I am a person who do not mind for a remake at all, since we have seen many remakes that have proved to be enjoyable and good in quality, as long as the filmmakers do not just copy the exact storyline and then put it scene by scene in the new movie just exact the same as the original. And it will be much better if they take a totally different approach to the remake, so that the film may look fresh. The easy one is the last reboot of James Bond's Casino Royale (2006). That one is a very good and highly entertaining movie with a daring new approach, and the result was, everybody just loved and talked about the movie. I happened to like and enjoy the latest remake of Friday the 13th (2009) too, not a totally different approach from the original, but the storyline somehow excited me.

This new A Nightmare on Elm Street was surely did not fall into the category of copying the exact storyline from the original. It did use a slightly different story with new characters, even though the background of Freddy Kruger was still the same. Anyway, it should be the same, because we definitely do not want our lunatic Freddy suddenly turns into a not-guilty person who was wrongly punished by the people, and then he comes back for a revenge after he died, right? So, what went wrong? The script. The story was just not good enough, very predictable, and somehow felt stale. You just knew what will happen next, and the tension did not really grip you at your seat. All the scary moments were like deja vu of what you've seen before in the past. Actually, I felt boring halfway thru the movie.

Now, about Jackie Earle Haley as the new Freddy. I must admit that Robert Englund has a great charisma as Freddy Kruger, with his iconic ugly-sinister smile and a slightly scary-comedic approach, that will be difficult to be replaced in our minds. The new Freddy of Haley's version is more serious. His face is even nastier and messier. But I think that was also the reason why the aura of Freddy Kruger (that we loved) did not really show-up and shine in this movie. Haley did not play the character bad actually, but with his new ordinary approach, somehow it seems like this character can be played by any other actors with antagonist faces.

So, how to play the character without copying Robert Englund? Actually it can be done. Remember Heath Ledger with his approach to Joker's character in The Dark Knight? He played the character brilliantly, even though he was overshadowed by Jack Nicholson's version of Joker at the beginning. And that was the performance of his (Ledger's) lifetime. This is actually the job of the actor to find the creative way to play his character as something new and fresh. But of course, he should get a good script at the first place. It's just hard to beat the already great predecessor.

This is not a good remake as what we expected. (MJ)

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE (2010)

MyRating: Y1/2

Director: Pierre Morel

Cast: John Travolta, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Kasia Smutniak

MPAA: Rated R for strong bloody violence throughout, drug content, pervasive language and brief sexuality

US Gross: US$ 24.1 Million

Worldwide Gross: US$ 41.2 Million

An over-the-top action flick about a low level CIA intelligence operative working for the US Ambassador in France, James Reece (Meyers), who finds himself facing a loose cannon when he has to partner with a wacko and super fearless special agent, Charlie Wax (Travolta). Their mission is to stop a terrorist attack in Paris. At the beginning, James feels difficult to accept Charlie's extreme methods in handling the case, but when he realizes that he himself is somehow becoming the target of the terrorist's big plan, James knows that he has to work hand-in-hand with his new partner to stop the terrorists before it is too late.

John Travolta is fun to watch as the wisecracking and tough-guy partner, with his bald and bearded appearance. He is the type of guy with a motto of "Do it my way" or "Do it my way". Some people may like him and some people may hate him. But I think he is the main attraction of this movie. Without him, this movie will be lifeless and soulless. Jonathan Rhys Meyers, on the other hand, is stiff and boring. He is just lack of expressions (and what is he doing carrying that vase all around?).

If you are a fan of a pure action film, maybe you will like this movie. There are plenty of actions. Gun-shooting, fighting, car chases, gun-shooting, explosions, bazooka, gun-shooting... But I didn't like it as I thought I would. Did not like the story, it is not a good script. And since I hardly can enjoy the story, I could not even enjoy the actions. (MJ)

JENNIFER'S BODY (2009)

MyRating: Y1/2

Director: Karyn Kusama

Cast: Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Johnny Simmons, Adam Brody

MPAA: Rated R for sexuality, bloody violence, language and brief drug use

US Gross: US$ 16.2 Million

Worldwide Gross: US$ 31.3 Million

I was so waiting for this movie. One reason, Megan Fox in the genre that I like, horror. Jennifer (Fox) is a popular high school cheerleader who is turned into a hungry demon that preys for young men. Her best friend, Needy (Seyfried) is the only person that is suspicious towards her weird change of behaviors. As one by one of the young men in their town got killed, Needy has to stop Jennifer because the next prey could be her own boyfriend.

Fox should be the perfect cast for the beautiful and sexy evil Jennifer, as she is becoming the most hot young actress nowadays after her role in Transformers. The premise of the film is also quite promising. So, what went wrong? A bad script. The movie never reaches its potential, the plot is not engaging, and you can easily guess what will happen next and where will the story go. It is not scary nor tense, that turns this movie into such a disappointment.

Apparently, Fox's acting is not good, as if she cannot act well. She does look gorgeous in this film. But she has a lot to prove in her next movies that she is more than a pretty face. Seyfried did a better job, and I have a funny feeling that Seyfried may get better important roles in terms of acting in the longer future. Fox is yet to prove that she is the next Angelina Jolie. (MJ)

THE TWILIGHT SAGA: NEW MOON (2009)

MyRating: Y

Director: Chris Weitz
Cast: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner
MPAA: Rated PG-13 for some violence and action
US Gross: US$ 296.6 Million
Worldwide Gross: US$ 707.2 Million

The modern love story between a human, Bella Swan (Stewart) and a vampire, Edward Cullen (Pattinson) is at test when Edward decides to leave Bella and moves out-of-town for the sake of her safety and goodness. Cannot accept the reality, the heartbroken Bella starts to live her life recklessly, with some hopes that if Edward can sense her in danger, he will come back to her. At that point, Jacob Black, a childhood friend, comes into her life and shakes her heart. But Jacob has his own big dark secret that is about to be disclosed. And this starts the love triangle between a human, a vampire and a werewolf.

This adaption from the second novel of the phenomenal Twilight series by Stephenie Meyer is dull, slow and somewhat frustrated for me to watch. The script is flat and seems to go nowhere. I was so bored that I looked at my watch several times through out the movie, unpatiently waiting it to be over.

Pattinson's acting is very poor and stiff, his expression is so emotionless that makes him looks like a robot. A vampire robot! I hate his character (or how he characterize it) so much, that I want to jump into the screen and slap him in the face once or twice (haha, just kidding). But his acting is real bad. Stewart herself gives a sleepy performance (she looks sleepy in the entire film) and her obsession with the vampire makes her character becomes a bit annoyance. However, Ms. Stewart is also the only thing that I like in this movie.

For me, this is a bizarre love story, not because I don't like the premise of love relationship between human and vampire, because I do enjoy True Blood (the TV series) very much, which has an intriguing story and good acting, and I still can enjoy the first Twilight. One thing I can say for sure about New Moon is, it has enough shirtless scenes from Pattinson and Lautner that will make teen girls around the world scream hysterically. (MJ)