I hate seeing the Wolfpack go.

It’s been two years.  Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) are happily living uneventful lives at home.  Tattoos have been lasered off, files purged.  The last they heard from disaster-magnet Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong), he’d been tossed into a Thai prison and, with him out of the way, the guys have very nearly recovered from their nights prowling the seamy side of Las Vegas in a roofie’d haze, and being kidnapped, shot at, and chased by drug-dealing mobsters in Bangkok.  The only member of the Wolfpack who’s not content is Alan (Zach Galifianakis).

Still lacking a sense of purpose, the group’s black sheep has ditched his meds and given into his natural impulses in a big way—which, for Alan, means no boundaries, no filters and no judgment—until a personal crisis forces him to finally seek the help he needs.And who better than his three best friends to make sure he takes the first step.This time, there’s no bachelor party.  No wedding.  What could possibly go wrong?   But when the Wolfpack hits the road, all bets are off. “The Hangover Part III” is the epic conclusion to an incomparable odyssey of mayhem and bad decisions, in which the guys must finish what they started by going back to where it all began: Las Vegas.

I am just ecstatic about this film is not seeing Chow again. The writer is very successful in making Chow such a hateable character that I almost want to walk out everytime I see his face (That would be a series of walkouts and walkbacks if that happens). Zach Galifianakis character has a certain charm to it, the plain cluelessness of his character and disgusting antics, although disgusting is still funny.

The third installment is quite different from the first 2 films. There was a seriousness to it making me think that the message that the movie is trying to send across is “Hey, we kind of matured a bit.”  Which is true with two of the main characters Phil and Stu. Reading through some of the reviews of The Hangover 3, I see that a lot of people hated it. Maybe it is the toning down of the story that did not win the hearts of the fans of the first two. While some like it. As for me, I missed the craziness of the first 2 movies that was quite lacking in the third one. Maybe it was the most logical development of the film as the two guys Phil and Stu kind of lead family man lives, but looking at it into another angle I hope that the writers sustained the level of crazy that the old ones have.

In conclusion, The Hangover 3 is still great comedy that I would recommend to those who are looking for a great laugh. Don’t forget to see the clip after the credits.

The Showbook Rating: 3 out of 5 stars

The Showbook Rating 3/5 stars

“I beg permission to mention by name only four people who have given me the most affection, appreciation, encouragement, and constant collaboration. The first of the four is a film editor, the second is a scriptwriter, the third is the mother of my daughter Pat [Patricia Hitchcock], and the fourth is as fine a cook as ever performed miracles in a domestic kitchen. And their names are Alma Reville.”

-- Alfred Hitchcock

For some who may be itching to see a film about how marvelous and intriguing Alfred Hitchcock is, better look somewhere else. For this film is all about the softer side of the great director – particularly the heartaches, the inner side – the complex love story of Alma Reville and Alfred Hitchcock.

The film lets us in the process of making the spine-tingling 1960 thriller – PSYCHO, before it became the director’s most controversial and legendary film. A movie that according to this story, was a labor of love of husband and wife Alfred and Alma Hitchcock.

Anthony Hopkins lets us in to another spectacular performance as Alfred Hitchcock. In a time where the ingredients to get an Oscar is to lose weight, gain weight, change your voice, it was quite a surprise that Mr. Hopkins did not get an Oscar nod this year. Having watched some of the entries, I believe that he should at least be part of the nominees. I do not know much about Alma Reville to say that Helen Mirren did a good job in the film, but in a rather weird way, she was able to show that she is the star of the show, that Alfred Hitchcock is who he is because of her.

Great actors, great concept, however I felt that there is not much room to become stellar in the material that was presented. I felt that the dilemmas presented are quite shallow and the building up is not sufficient. There are also some scenes that puts Hitchcock in a rather unfavorable light, which was a little disappointing. Even the dilemmas that Alma Reville goes through, it felt like some scenes have to be stretched out just to make something out of the characters.

Ultimately, what resonates in the film is the genuine love of Alma and Alfred Hitchcock for each other. You watch the film because of Anthony Hopkins and Helen Mirren. The banter between the two was fun, the chemistry is spot on, and the acting, superb. It won’t hurt to watch PSYCHO too, to know why this film mattered.

One thing that I hate about some Academy nominated films is that you go out of the movie theatre, feeling that you’ve been preached, or with a heavy heart due to the complexities of the story and the problems of the character, or just plain dumbfounded because you failed to understand a thing about the movie you just watched. This is somehow the feeling that I am expecting to have before I watched “The Descendants” but I was completely mistaken.

The Descendants is a story about family with George Clooney’s character, Matt King, in the center. Matt King is  a privileged Honolulu attorney who is tasked to be the trustee of their families inherited properties. His character is a “hapa-haole” or half-white. His great-great-grandmother was Princess Margaret Ke’alohilani, one of the last direct descendants of King Kamehameha, who fell in love with her haole (Hawaiian for white or foreign) banker, Edward King, leading to Matt’s current life as a Honolulu lawyer with deep, tangled roots in the islands.

But his rich roots didn’t help at all in being a good husband and father to his family. Instead, he became an “understudy” father and a non-existent husband. But after his wife went into a coma after a boating accident, he is compelled to reevaluate his marriage and life. His mischievous daughters don’t trust him, his imperiled wife has been cheating on him and his broke cousins see him and the land trust he controls as a piggy bank. To add insult to injury, he’s surrounded by a lush, fertile, awe-inspiring landscape that defies his inner turmoil.

The Descendants made me laugh and cry at the same time. George Clooney may be great in the film, but the real rockstars are the writers: Jim Rash, Nat Faxon and Alexander Payne. The movie was a complete irony that worked. A film that may seem to be serious but was full of comedy, a complex storyline and drama. Even the setting speaks a ton that you are not seeing an ordinary movie.

The characters are colorful in their own ways. George Clooney's performance was heartfelt. I must say that this is a stripped down Clooney. Out of the snazzy costumes and portraying a disgruntled father, this is his performance that I liked best so far.

I particularly loved Nick Krause’ character "Sid”. He stole the scene in almost all those times where he opens his mouth. The banter between him and Clooney was just funny. Amanda Miller’s character “Scottie King” may be a little bit shocking but this kid did not cringe a bit in those scenes.

Great ensemble with a moving story. This is one film that proves that you don’t need monster special effects to produce a great film. Hoping to see more of Alexander Payne’s work.

Rating: 4 stars

“The Descendants” opens February 15 in theaters from 20^th Century Fox to be distributed by Warner Bros.

Alvin, Simon, Theodore and the Chipettes are back in Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked.  Due to their rowdiness, the chipmunks wreak havoc – to themselves. They accidentally got shipwrecked after a huge accident in the cruise. They are marooned in the island of Scilly, where they met a castaway who are about to turn things around.

I was quite hesitant to watch this sequel because I was not able to watch the first and the second one. Although I’m quite familiar with the Chipettes, I thought there will be some plot  points that will not be clear to me. But after watching this film, I found out that the sequel can stand on its own. There was a little introduction about the Chipettes that would make those who were not able to watch the first movie still catch up.

Although it may not be at the same caliber as that of other well loved animated/semi-animated films, it was still able to entertain. There are just silly characters that I hope the producers would bury 10 feet under a dark, murky grave because they are just not necessary in the film. Some of the humor worked, some are just plain corny and creepy. I don’t think putting a psychologically disturbed castaway and a guy who will not take off his chicken suit would teach the kids any lesson at all.

Putting those two characters aside, I felt that Dave, Alvin, the Chipmunks and the Chipettes are better off without any annoying supporting actors. Watching the chipmunks stylize the island is just fun, and their humor worked for me. I must say that Theodore is one ball of cuteness all throughout the movie, well, all of the ‘munks did anyway.

In true blue ‘munk fashion, there are contemporary song and dance numbers that are cute and funny. They used some famous pop hits…and old ones. I personally loved Funky Town and Bad Romance.

Ultimately, you watch this film with the kids. This movie do not have any ambitions to bag an award or to amaze you with a smart plot, rather it is there to celebrate the well loved characters we all know as Alvin, Simon and Theodore. Maybe you can have space in your heart for the Chipettes too. :)

Rating: 2 spotlights

“Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked” opens January 8 from 20^th Century Fox to be distributed by Warner Bros. nationwide.

A Game of Shadows may not be as entertaining as the first Holmes movie, but with Robert Downey Jr. as the famous detective alongside Stephen Fry, Rachel McAdams, Noomi Rapace and Jude Law, what can go wrong?

Guy Ritchie adapted some tested “tricks” he used from the first film and improved it on this one. Like how Holmes dissects/narrates his plan of attack to the audience before he does it, the interesting camera angles which highlights the fight scenes, and of course the dry humor.

Visually, I must say that Guy Ritchie has a keen eye to detail. I love how this period was depicted in the film, as seen in the furniture, the costumes, and the setting. There was this scene where a common fight sequence was, in my own terms, beautiful due to the use of interesting angles. Its the first time that I have seen such artistry in a somewhat common scene we see in action movies.

Alas, I felt that his attention to detail was a letdown in the numerous sequences of the movie. For a fast-paced movie, 2 hours felt like 3 hours. Although it was necessary in the film, the do-now-explain-later scenes where Holmes explains his strategy is a little overused. I would appreciate it if Ritchie lets his audience think instead of providing the explanations…all the time. It felt that it sucked out the mystery out of a mystery movie.

However, the witty banter of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law saves the rather stretched and “spoiled” parts of the storyline. It was clear that Ritchie is showering “bromance” all over the place. Even though there are weak parts, it is still filled with witty dialogue and must-hear dry humor. Some are courtesy of Fry of course.

Overall, you will watch it because you need to watch how Robert Downey Jr. gives life to Sherlock Holmes, how Jude Law transforms into Dr. Watson and definitely the awesome fight scenes. Just have the mindset that you have to be in “thinking mode” when you watch this movie. Spoiler: Great wit in the ending.

The Showbook Rating: 3.5

Parental Advisory: There are a lot of fight scenes that might be too much for 12 year old below kids.

Hugh Jackman makes a monster comeback with awesome prizefighting robots in Real Steel! Rumor has it that its just going to be like Transformers, but it wasn't - it was definitely better!

Real Steel is set in the future where the sport of boxing has gone high-tech. Hugh Jackman plays Charlie Kenton, a former prizefighter who lost his career when 2000 pound, 8 foot steel robots became the in thing. Now a small time promoter, Charlie earns just enough money to make ends meet. He also spends his time looking through scraps of old robots to repair the "wounds" of his prizefighter.

Charlie reluctantly teams up with his estranged son Max (Dakota Goyo) to build and train a championship contender. Charlie and Max against all odds, get one last shot at a comeback.

The storyline kept me at the edge of my seat. Although it doesn't showcase anything new except for the idea of Robot boxers, it really entertained the boxing fan out of me until the end. The story was packed with different genres- there was of course action, definitely drama, although there were some attempts to inject a little comedy, a weak attempt but I would have to give them an A for effort although it was not necessary in the film. The journey of Charlie Kenton and Max was inspiring, it also showcased the love of family and how one who came from nothing can be something. A tried and tested formula that worked for the film.

The movie may not be that good without the amazing heartfelt  performance of Hugh Jackman and Dakota Goyo. They were well casted, as both actors have this unbelievable ability to really connect with the audience. Dakota was surprisingly good at a young age, he actually reminds me of young Ethan Hawke. His acting was seamless, the emotions were really felt all throughout the movie. He infuses this natural authenticity in the character he portrays. I hope that this kid will grow up to become a famous actor instead of being just one of them famous-then child stars.

Hugh Jackman was the perfect ingredient to back up the magnificent robots. After training with Sugar Ray Leonard for this movie, he was a believable boxer in the film. I have  one word for Mr Jackman: Respect.

Of course who would not forget the magnificent robots (I think I used superlatives in this review way too much!) These robots which range from 7'6" to 8'5" in height mimicked humans through motion capture technology. With the help of boxing great Sugar Ray Leonard, the movements of course have this grain of legitimacy.

I can't help but be excited by the future of the technology showcased in the film. Some examples are Hugh Jackmans cellphone, the laptops among others. It seemed believable that this will be the future of technology and I just can't wait to see it.

Overall, it was a full film. Definitely a must watch with your family, with your significant other or with your friends.

Rating: 4 out of 5 spotlights

Opening across the Philippines on Oct. 12 in IMAX, 2D and regular theaters, “Real Steel” is a DreamWorks Picture distributed locally by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures International.

The cliche that worked. - It is interesting how this movie utilized the abused tried and tested elements of a romantic comedy, and yet still emerged as fresh, entertaining and croon-worthy!

Plot

Although this movie sort of Black-Swanned the plot for Natalie Portman's No Strings Attached, this movie surpassed Portman's movie way way waaaaay higher. It used all the common elements of a romantic comedy: only that the sex comes a little earlier . The movie never tried to confuse you, but the way leading to the ending is very entertaining and memorable.

The introduction of the characters at the beginning of the film is one of the most creative have seen, and the creativity did not end there, it was able to sustain it until the end. There is a lot of witty dialogue that I can't help but find some quotable funny and memorable quotes in the film.The film bashes romantic comedies, yet it started to act out the exact same cliches it is making fun of.

There are also a lot of colorful characters in the film that are far from the normal romantic comedy which I think made this movie stand out. I particularly love Jamie's mother Lorna played by Patricia Clarkson as well as Woody Harrelson's character Tommy.

And of course the movie is set in beautiful New York - my dream city. It was able to highlight really good places that a wannabe New Yorker wants to see.

Cast

Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake won hands down in the electric chemistry category, however Justin still needs some work in the acting category. Maybe this film did not give him much to work with to showcase his talent, but I think it showed enough based on the level of acting where he is currently. Mila I must say based on the roster of young actresses we have right now is perfect for the film. I think she is the only one who can pull off this role without making the audience feel iffy or awkward. She was able to pull it off and captivate the audience.

Patricia Clarkson's character really stood out for me among all the mothers out there in other romantic comedies :D. She was the only non-cliche in the cliche-filled romcom kingdom. I can't wait to see more of her other films. Probably not the same role though :D.

Conclusion

Overall this movie really stood out as one of the most unforgettable romantic comedies out there. It did not try to preach blatantly, or try to be a dramatic romantic comedy. It is what it is: A fun film! And they did a pretty good job at it. A movie that I will not get tired watching again and again.

Friends with Benefits will have whole-day sneak previews on Monday and Tuesday, Sept. 19 & 20, in selected theaters everywhere. Opening across the Philippines on September 28.