e-ramblings

Genre: Science Fiction / Thriller

Director: Christopher Nolan

Writer: Christopher Nolan

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, Ken Watanabe, Dileep Rao, Cilian Murphy, Marion Cotillard, Michael Caine

Running Length: 148 minutes

Synopsis: The less one knows about the plot of Inception, the better – so I will be brief. Set in a world when humans are able to enter the dreams of others, information that has been hidden away in the mind is no longer safe from prying hands. These thieves of dreams are known as “extractors”, and Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is one of the best in the field. However, when corporate magnate Saito (Ken Watanabe) contacts Cobb and partner Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), he is not looking for extraction but “inception” – the planting of an idea in one’s head. Cobb is convinced to take on the job, and has to assemble a motley crew, each fulfilling a specific purpose, to try to successfully attempt inception.

Review: Can Christopher Nolan do no wrong? First noticed for the exceptional mind bender that was Memento, Nolan has moved on to create two of the best superhero movies of all time (namely Batman Begins and The Dark Knight), and now Inception – his 10-year old project - has finally made it to the big screens. I'm happy to say that Inception continues Nolan's winning streak, and it's very simply the best live-action film I've seen this year.

Inception has an amazingly detailed story, working on multiple levels at one go, augmented by exceptional action sequences, good performances from its leads, some stunning camerawork and stuntwork, a great score and has been edited faultlessly. Seems like a lot of superlatives in one sentence, but Inception really manages to tick off almost every check box – to say that it's an instant classic isn't an overstatement.

Inception is a film that demands your undivided attention – it's a long movie (almost two and a half hours), and the storyline is so complex that even a quick toilet break may mean a gap in comprehension. Make no mistake, this is a film that stands up to repeat viewings, and practically demands it. The concept may not be very new – there are shades of The Matrix, Dark City, Minority Report and more in Inception, but much like the best of these films, Inception presents it in a new light. The multi-layered narrative structure – at one point in the movie, four narrative layers were unfolding at the same time – could have been extremely confusing, but Nolan manages to weave the narratives together seamlessly, augmented by some excellent editing, and surrounds it with a watertight internal logic that helps with audience immersion.

Intellectual stimulation aside, Inception is also very accomplished as an action movie. A number of action set pieces are very thrilling and high-octane, rivaling any big budget actioner out there for adrenaline kicks. Visual effects do not overpower the raw action, and it’s very encouraging to note that Nolan had used physical sets in a fair number of scenes instead of relying solely on green screen wizadry. One particularly impressive scene involves Joseph Gordon-Levitt careening through a hotel corridor with varying levels of gravity, and it’s an extremely well-choreographed action sequence that truly excites the mind. This level of accomplishment comes as no surprise, since Nolan has managed to put together equally impressive action set pieces in the Batman movies. This is, to use a clichéd but apt phrase, truly a thinking man’s action movie. 

This is Leonardo DiCaprio's second outing in a psychological thriller this year, the first being Scorsese's Shutter Island. His performance here is more subdued and not quite so over the top (read: less "crazy eyes") than in Shutter Island, which makes Cobb a fair bit more believable as a character and serves as a good emotional anchor in the film. Ellen Page is saddled with the unenviable task of delivering almost all the expository lines in the film, but still manages to do a pretty decent job as Cobb’s muse (of sorts). Amongst the rest of the strong supporting cast, Marion Cotillard’s performance is the standout – although she appears in a mere handful of scenes, they are impactful and memorable, and Mal easily becomes a central character despite having the least screen time.  

Inception bucks the trend of remakes, retreads, sequels and mindless action films that have overwhelmingly populated cinemas in recent years, and is a fresh, new piece of cinema that excites the senses and the mind. With the commercial success of the Batman movies, Nolan could have churned out cookie-cutter action films with guaranteed box office returns, but with Inception it’s clear he was willing to make a gamble for a project that’s close to his heart. Inception succeeds on many levels and is testament to Nolan’s talent, and is the first live-action film this year that I can recommend to any moviegoer without any reservation.

Rating: * * * * (out of four stars)

Genre: Animation

Directors: Chris Renaud, Pierre Coffin

Writers: Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio based on a story by Sergio Pablos

Voice Cast: Steve Carrell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews, Will Arnett, Kristen Wiig

Running Length: 94 minutes

Synopsis: Gru (Steve Carrell) has prided himself on being a supervillain, but when someone else steals the Great Pyramid of Giza, Gru knows it's time to step it up a notch. His new plan - to steal the moon and hold it ransom - can only be accomplished with a Shrink Ray, but getting his hands on one can be very tough when he's pitting himself against Vector (Jason Segel), the new villain on the block. Gru chances upon an unconventional solution of adopting three orphan girls - Margo (Miranda Cosgrove), Edith (Dana Gaier) and Agnes (Elsie Fisher) - who will then become his "in" to infiltrating Vector's fortress. What Gru didn't count on, of course, was that his paternal instinct would be brought to the forefront when he is with the three girls. Superbad? Or Superdad?

Review:  Despicable Me bears more than a passing resemblance to the Shrek franchise - both movies establish an anti-hero as a central character, and both make copious use of humour and a bevy of interesting (and some will say scene-stealing) supporting characters to augment the leads. In fact, Despicable Me seems to have borrowed a fair bit off a number of other movies, but thankfully despite this the film still manages to be quite an entertaining film for young and old.

The best thing about Despicable Me is its humour, which is presented both visually and in its smart script. There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments, and the directors wisely decided to give the minions (strange yellow gnomes spouting gibberish) a lot of exposure, with much of the sight gags coming from these creatures (and some great Spy vs Spy moments between Gru and Vector). It is great fun to watch, and even though it’s a little too piecemeal for my liking, there’s no denying that Despicable Me would be a true crowd pleaser across most audience demographics.

The voice cast is a mixed lot – Steve Carrell’s accent seems a little inconsistent, and Julie Andrews is criminally underused as Gru’s mum (although her non-committal “eehhhhh”s to Gru was one of the highlights of the film to me), but generally the cast turn in decent vocal performances, especially the directors themselves who voiced most of the gibberish spouted by the minions.

And now, the million dollar question for films released this year – to 3D or not to 3D? Despicable Me takes a slightly different route in its 3D implementation and intentionally creates scenes where the “3D effect” is very obvious, including a very tongue-in-cheek end credits sequence where the minions try to outdo each other in being “more 3D”. Yes – it’s completely a gimmick, but one that would probably be appreciated by younger audiences. I remain unimpressed, and in my opinion the film is not one that needs to be watched in 3D.

It seems that 2010 is the year of animated films, and although Despicable Me does not come close to the bar set by Pixar’s Toy Story 3, especially in terms of its story, it still manages to roundly beat almost every single live-action summer blockbuster I’ve watched this year. Even if one remains unmoved by the rather simplistic plot, only the dourest audiences would leave the cinema without at least a smile on their faces.

Rating:  * * * (out of four stars)

Genre: Animation

Director: Lee Unkrich

Writer:  Michael Arndt, based on a story by John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich

Voice Cast: Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack, Ned Beatty, Don Rickles, Michael Keaton, Wallace Shawn, John Ratzenberger, Estelle Harris

Running Length: 98 minutes

Synopsis: Years have passed and Andy is now preparing to go to college. The few toys that remain – which include Woody (Tom Hanks), Jessie (Joan Cusack) and Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen),  are naturally worried for their fates, but Woody reassures them that they will all live in the attic until the next generation comes along and plays with them. Unfortunately, a series of incidents occur that lead to the toys ending up at a daycare centre, which initially seems like a dream come true as there is no lack of children to play with the toys. However, the daycare centre is ruled with an iron fist by Lots-o’-Huggin’-Bear (Ned Beatty), and Andy’s toys soon realize they need to make their way back to their owner. Escaping the daycare centre, however, is not going to be an easy task…

Review:  It’s been 15 years since the first Toy Story enchanted audiences both young and old, and 11 years since Toy Story 2 upped the ante even further. I am very pleased to say that Toy Story 3 has managed to maintain the pedigree of the Toy Story franchise, and manages to (presumably) conclude the Toy Story movies on a level that other animation studios can only dream of. With an excellent mix of action, comedy, and pathos, coupled with great characterization, good visuals, and a compelling plot for both children and adults alike, it’s not hard to presume, even at this point, that Toy Story 3 will be the best summer film I’ll see this year. I’ll even go out on a limb and say that this is probably one of the best movies of the year, if not the best.

It’s a given nowadays that computer animated films will look very polished and highly detailed, and of course Pixar is no different in this aspect. The look of Toy Story 3 is of course improved over the previous two films, but when computer animated films are released with such frequency these days, it’s no longer as easy to impress. And of course there’s the issue of 3D, which seems to be the Holy Grail for movies released of late. I believe the cinema in which I had caught the preview was not calibrated properly for 3D, which resulted in a very distracting background “shimmer” that made viewing a very taxing and distracting experience. However, even if this is accounted for, the 3D implementation of Toy Story 3 is woefully inadequate, and there are extended moments in the film where nothing very 3D seems to be going on. This is perhaps the only true blemish I can find in Toy Story 3, and hence my recommendation is to save the money and just catch the film in “plain” 2D.

Like many of its Pixar predecessors, the aspect in which Toy Story 3 truly shines is story, story, story. Although children will be able to enjoy the movie on a basic level (note that some scenes may be a little too intense for the very young), much of the movie will only truly resonate with adult viewers. Many of the gags, especially those involving Ken and Barbie’s romantic endeavours, will definitely be better appreciated by the secondary audience. Also, the amazing depth of emotion that can be found in this animated film is not even usually achieved by a live-action film, and huge props must go to Pixar for having crafted such a masterful work. One of the best examples of this is near the film’s end, after all the action has come and gone, where Andy introduces each of his toys to a little girl. Much like the first 10 minutes of Up, this scene packs such a massive emotional wallop that it wouldn’t be surprising to find more than a few audience members with tears in their eyes as the credits roll.

Few movie franchises manage to deliver after a couple of sequels, and it’s great to see that whilst Toy Story 3 has pulled it off, the denouement does also seem to suggest that there won’t be another sequel somewhere down the road. It’s possibly the best send-off we can get for these familiar and well-loved characters, and the Toy Story trilogy will live on timelessly as all great movies do. If you pick one animated film to watch in 2010, make sure it’s Toy Story 3.

Rating:  * * * * (out of four stars)

Genre: Action

Director: Joe Carnahan

Writers:  Joe Carnahan, Brian Blom & Skip Woods

Cast: Liam Neeson, Bradley Cooper, Quinton "Rampage" Jackson, Sharlto Copley, Jessica Biel, Patrick Wilson

Running Length: 117 minutes

Synopsis: The A-Team serves as an “origins” movie for the TV series, explaining how the A-Team was formed. Viewers of the TV series know that the A-Team is an ex-military group of mercenaries, who were wrongly accused for a crime they didn’t commit. The movie explains how the four – uber intelligent leader Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), brute force B.A. Baracus (Quinton “Rampage” Jackson), pretty boy Templeton “Faceman” Peck (Bradley Cooper) and unhinged (but excellent) pilot “Mad” Murdock (Sharlto Copley). An elite military unit in Iraq, they are framed for stealing counterfeit US$100 engraving plates and are sent to prison. However, with the help of a CIA operative Lynch (Patrick Wilson), they escape and attempt to clear their names. Hot in pursuit is Lieutenant Sosa (Jessica Biel) and her military team, who also happens to be Faceman’s old flame, as well as another band of mercenaries led by Pike (Brian Bloom).

Review:  The A-Team follows the summer action blockbuster template to a T, which means an extremely thin plot, and an endless number of action sequences, peppered by humourous one liners, and a little bit of romance. In short, it serves to appeal to the teenaged boys as the main viewer demographic, who will undoubtedly enjoy the movie even if they have no idea this franchise had a previous life on the small screen. That’s not to say that older viewers and women won’t be able to enjoy the movie – there are enough references to the TV franchise (stay for the post-credits scene to catch a cameo of two of the TV alumni), just about the right mix of action and cheese to make this a relatively pleasant viewing experience. For the women (and some men), Bradley Cooper continues his streak (pun intended) of appearing bare-chested in the film, and for extended scenes to boot.

Most of the action sequences are pretty intense, but this is definitely not a movie which takes the laws of physics into consideration. They are, however, quite fun to watch even as your mind gradually shuts down from disuse as the minutes roll by (and thus the action sequences become increasingly entertaining). However, Joe Carnahan employs a Michael Bay-esque directorial style at times, which employs way too many quick cuts, to the point that some scenes look jittery and are utterly confusing (think Transformers).

Although both the plot and the cast play second fiddle to the action, the four lead actors actually pull off a pretty admirable job of aping the old TV characters. The most memorable one has to be Sharlto Copley (whose previous cinematic outing in District 9 proved pretty good as well), who is almost a carbon copy of Dwight Schulz’s performance (the original Mad Murdock).

The 2010 summer releases have been relatively disappointing to date, both for the testosterone and oestrogen parades, and fortunately The A-Team is a slight step up from the mediocre. Had the action been less frenetic and the plot a little more substantive, this would have been the first true summer blockbuster of the year; as it stands it’s a good 2-hour diversion (and possibly a guilty pleasure), but nothing more.

Rating:  * * ½ (out of four stars)

Genre: Comedy / Drama

Director: Michael Patrick King

Writer: Michael Patrick King

Cast: Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Cynthia Nixon, Kristin Davis, Chris Noth, Evan Handler, David Eigenberg, John Corbett

Running Length: 146 minutes

Synopsis:  It’s been another two years since freelance writer Carrie Bradshaw (Sarah Jessica Parker) has finally married the man of her dreams, John Preston aka “Mr Big” (Chris Noth). However, beneath the marital bliss lies some discontent – Carrie is afraid that the spark has gone out of their relationship, especially since Big seems more intent to stay home and watch TV then to go out and paint the town red. Her three best friends are also each having problems of her own: Samantha (Kim Cattrall) enters menopause and is trying her best to beat the clock with handfuls of vitamins and supplements; Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) is overworked and underappreciated in the law firm she works in; and Charlotte (Kristin Davis) finds her two children to be more than she can handle, and though her buxom nanny is a great help, she’s afraid that the nanny’s presence may cause Harry (Evan Handler) to stray. After a chance meeting with a sheik, the girls are whisked off to an all expenses paid, one-week vacation in Abu Dhabi, where Carrie chances upon old flame Aidan (John Corbett), and old emotions bubble once again to the surface. Will Carrie’s ever after be as happy as she envisaged it would be?

Review:  I’ll be the first to say that I am a big fan of the Sex and the City series, and even though the first movie had quite a few flaws, I was more than willing to let them slide and to go along for the ride. The huge box office success of the movie practically ensured the existence of this sequel, but one cannot help but wonder if it was a good idea. In the first movie, all four women had storylines of their own, which at least managed to justify the epic running length. In this second film, however, none of the women have very substantive storylines, and Samantha and Miranda are both reduced to being nothing but plot devices (just like all the men in the movie) – yet the movie is only 2 minutes shorter than its predecessor. It’s an incredibly bloated and indulgent movie, and there’s so little narrative progression and so much excess that it becomes overwhelming.

And “excess” is truly the keyword that permeates the entire movie. Sure, the out-of-reach fashions and accessories may be interesting, but this time round costume designer Patricia Fields seems to have been equipped with an ugly stick, as some of the fashions are truly gaudy and hideous. A purported $10 million wardrobe budget doesn’t manage to buy good taste, unfortunately. And yes, it’s supposed to be an escapist fantasy, but sometimes it stretches believability a little too much, and throughout the twelve-year lifespan of Sex and the City, it has never been this apparent.

And then there’s the sojourn to “Abu Dhabi” (actually Morocco, and it’s easy to see why Abu Dhabi declined to be part of this movie), which to me is the lowest point in the entire Sex and the City franchise. The name of the game after all is Sex and the City, and the characters do best when they are on their home ground of NYC, not a foreign country. This sequel makes the mistake of keeping the ladies on a foreign land for what seems like more than half the running length, in which all they do is go from tourist locale to another tourist locale. Was this meant to be a travelogue? The Mexico interlude in the first movie was somewhat acceptable because there was a fair bit of plot development, but the way the ladies behave in Abu Dhabi, particularly Samantha, crosses the line of comedy and enters into the realm of bad taste and crassness. It’s so belittling of the Muslim faith and the cultures and traditions of a foreign land that I felt mildly apologetic simply by sitting through it. Sex and the City is supposed to be fun, but it should not be at someone else’s expense.

There are still some brighter moments in the film, where what made the TV series so good comes to the forefront – an example would be the scene where Miranda and Charlotte commiserate about the difficulties of motherhood over Cosmopolitans, and for a moment one is transported back in the better days of the franchise. Unfortunately, too much of the movie is like the (rather painful) Liza Minelli performance of “Single Ladies” early on in the film – everyone looks older, and although their presence is somewhat appreciated, it eventually feels a little too desperate and sad, even for fans. Here’s hoping that Michael Patrick King finally realizes that Sex and the City’s shelf life is up, and to quit while he’s ahead, before the franchise makes a seamless transition to Golden Girls: The Movie.   

Rating:  * * (out of four stars)

Genre: Animation

Director: Mike Mitchell

Writers: Josh Klausner, Darren Lemke

Voice Cast: Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas, Walt Dohn

Running Length: 93 minutes

Synopsis:  Shrek (Mike Myers) and Fiona (Cameron Diaz) are now happily married ogres, with three children in tow, and best friend Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and family an integral part of their lives. However, life has become so routine that Shrek suffers from a mid-life crisis, hoping to find a way out from his mundane existence. Rumplestiltskin (Walt Dohn) hears his wish and grants it, but Shrek fails to read the fine print on the contract, and is tricked into an alternate version of Far Far Away where he never existed and Rumplestiltskin is king – and Shrek has only a day to fix everything. Yes, it’s basically an animated take on It’s A Wonderful Life.  

Review:  With all the Shrek movies making big bucks, it’s little wonder that yet another sequel has been made(claimed to be the final installment, but Puss in Boots already has a spin off coming next year so…). The good news is that Shrek Forever After is very much improved from Shrek the Third, and at times is reminiscent of the first two films in the Shrek franchise. However, even Shrek cannot escape the trappings of 3D, and it now has the dubious honour of being the animated film with the most poorly implemented 3D I have had the chance to see (so far). My advice – don’t bother shelling out the extra money for 3D for this film.

Although the first Shrek had a very different visual aesthetic to Pixar’s films, nothing much has improved or changed over the past decade, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing since the benchmark was set pretty much from the beginning. There are some attempts early in the film to make things “pop” in 3D, but as the film progresses these instances become fewer and further between. In fact, with the frequent chase and action sequences in the film, the 3D implementation simply cannot keep up. The same goes for the voice talents – we’ve all heard these voices before, and although it’s unimaginable to replace them at this point in time, even Mike Myers seems to be dialing in his performance.

It may seem like there are a lot of niggling points for Shrek Forever After, but the film is solidly entertaining despite these flaws. There are still fun pop culture references (the usage of “Top of the World” by the Carpenters is rather inspired), and some good gags to be had (although many of the funny parts have been included in the trailers for the film). And Puss in Boots’ googly eyes never, ever fail to crack me up regardless of the number of times I see it.

However entertaining and fun the movie was, there’s also this consistent feeling that this fourth movie is a very good time to give closure to the main Shrek franchise. I cannot imagine sitting through yet another Shrek movie, and since the franchise has already done a Frank Capra, even the alternate reality angle has been covered. Let’s hope that the almost-assured box office success of Shrek Forever After won’t change the producers’ minds.

Rating:  * * * (out of four stars)

Director:  Jon Favreau

Writer: Justin Theroux

Cast: Robert Downey Jr, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson

Running Length: 124 minutes

Synopsis: Set 6 months after the incidents that unfolded in the first Iron Man, the world now knows that billionaire playboy Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) is the seemingly invincible Iron Man. However, beneath that brash exterior, Stark is beginning to crack from the strain of being Iron Man, and the technology that is keeping him alive is also slowly poisoning him. Meanwhile, a deranged Russian man, Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) is plotting to annihilate Stark, and with access to similar technology, has become a super-villain named Whiplash. Stark has to figure out how to overcome the restrictions of his suit, rescue his relationships with girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and best friend James Rhodes (Don Cheadle, replacing Terrence Howard), and survive Whiplash’s vicious onslaught…

Review:  What a great way to kick off the summer blockbuster season! If we look back to 2008 when the first Iron Man was released, Robert Downey Jr was a middling star, Iron Man was a minor Marvel property that nobody really cared about,  and Jon Favreau was known more as an actor than a director (Elf, anyone?). However, Iron Man became a stellar box office performer and garnered praise across the board, and as a result all eyes are now on Iron Man 2 to repeat this feat. Has it managed to do so? On most counts, I would have to say yes it did.

Superhero movies aren’t exactly known to have strong plots, but even then Iron Man 2’s plot does tend to feel very thin at times. It doesn’t help that the sequel is also a little lazier, depending on prior knowledge of the first movie to fill in some of the narrative gaps. Having gotten that out of the way, the rest of Iron Man 2 is supremely entertaining, and shows exactly how a successful blockbuster is created – an extremely charismatic lead, a bunch of reasonably decent supporting performances, good action set pieces that don’t take up the bulk of the film’s running time, and a generous peppering of humour to make everything go down that much easier.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that Robert Downey Jr is largely responsible for making this film a success – his performance is so compelling, charismatic and eminently likeable that one can’t help but root for him, warts and all. In fact, Favreau is so aware of his lead actor’s charisma that he practically keeps Downey Jr out of the metal suit for the entire movie, save for a few action sequences. The same goes for Don Cheadle, who is a more than capable replacement for Terrence Howard but unfortunately really isn’t given that much to do.

On the villain front, Mickey Rourke is silently menacing in his few scenes, whereas Sam Rockwell is the exact opposite, actively chewing the scenery in every scene as millionaire weapons dealer Justin Hammer, and almost steals the show with his over the top performance.

And then there are the femme fatales – Gwyneth Paltrow once again feels underdeveloped as Stark’s love interest (as does the entire romance subplot), but Scarlett Johansson scores a home run with her portrayal of Natalie Rushman aka the Black Widow in the Marvel universe. She gets a scene where she literally kicks ass, and it would be interesting to see if she would get an expanded role in the upcoming Marvel universe films, which could include Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, Nick Fury and of course the inevitable Iron Man 3. Many of these are subtly referenced in the film (as well as in a short post-end credits sequence), but these little winks and nudges could prove to be confusing and alienating to audiences not acquainted with the Marvel universe, especially since many of these characters aren’t as popular or well-known as those in X-Men or Spiderman.

Iron Man 2 also has a couple of well-choreographed action sequences, in particular the scene at the Monaco Grand Prix, but the finale feels slightly underwhelming as it’s simply a bunch of tin men battling it out with guns blazing. It doesn’t confuse, unlike the terrible action sequences in the Transformers franchise, but it’s not particularly exciting either. Having said the, the CG work in Iron Man 2 is top notch, and there’s very little that can be nitpicked.

There’s a potential for Iron Man 2 to be quite a dark movie, with Stark’s gradual poisoning from the suit and his nihilistic behaviour, but Favreau tries as much as possible to keep it light, injecting a fair amount of humour into the film. There were times where I wished that Favreau would have taken the risk and gone a little more Dark Knight on his take of Iron Man, but two brooding superheroes probably won’t make good business sense. Not that there’s much wrong with the path he’s chosen for his franchise, since Iron Man 2 is almost assuredly a box office hit and will spawn one more sequel at the very least. And unlike most franchises, I am actually quite eager to see what else can be pulled out of Favreau’s bag of tricks in the third installment.

Rating:  * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Genre: Action Comedy

Director:  Shawn Levy

Writers: Josh Klausner

Cast: Steve Carell, Tina Fey, Mark Wahlberg, Taraji P. Henson, Jimmi Simpson, Common, William Fichtner

Running Length: 98 minutes

Synopsis: Phil and Claire Foster (Steve Carell and Tina Fey) are a happily married couple, but like so many couples in real life, the romance in their lives have given way to work and parenting duties. They schedule occasional “date nights” but even that has become rather routine. On one such date night, Phil decides to break out of the mould and go for something different – he takes Claire to a trendy new Manhattan restaurant, but because they had no reservations made, he also steals the table of “the Tripplehorns”, who seem to have skipped their dinner. However, it soon becomes apparent why – a pair of thugs, Armstrong (Jimmi Simpson) and Collins (Common) arrives at the restaurant to retrieve an item from the Fosters, which obviously is not in their possession. So begins a manic night across town where the Fosters have to use all their resources to outwit the thugs, obtain the item from the real Tripplehorns (James Franco and Mila Kunis), and maybe even strike a deal with the current mob boss (Ray Liotta). The Fosters also seek help from a laid-back ex-military secret ops guy called Holbrooke (Mark Wahlberg) who seems to have an aversion to wearing shirts and have somewhat of a history with Claire.

Review: Date Night is a very good example of how a movie can work without a good script – the plot for the film ranks about 9.5 on the cliché scale, but Steve Carell and Tina Fey perform so well in their roles that all is forgiven. Both are great comedians and are already proven veterans on both the small and big screen, but together their chemistry and comic timing are truly impeccable and a force to be reckoned with. The action sequences may be a little pedestrian, and (of course) not every joke works, but when Date Night works, it does so very well, and makes for a very entertaining film that doesn’t outlive its welcome.

Just like a romcom, an action comedy film like Date Night is very dependent on the chemistry between the lead characters, and the Steve Carell and Tina Fey pairing is simply one of the best I have seen this year. They are totally believable in their roles – many audience members will see a little (or a lot) of themselves in the Fosters, which makes the emotional connection stronger. There’s a great little scene in between the action where the couple stop and contemplate the state of their marriage, and it’s this scene that really sealed the deal for me. Of course, most of what they go through is nothing short of unbelievable, but at least the audience has a vested interest in seeing them triumph.

There are a great lot of laughs to be had in Date Night, most of them delivered with impeccable comic timing by Carell and Fey. Although both actors are not known for physical comedy, there is a scene involving the duo late in the film that shows that they can rise to that particular challenge. In the outtakes featured during the end credits (stay till the end to catch them all), it’s clear to see that Shawn Levy had given the two actors a lot of free play, and even the improvs that didn’t make the final cut are quite hilarious.

Credit also goes to the supporting cast for their comedic efforts, in particular James Franco and Mila Kunis for a very memorable scene as the real Tripplehorns, and Mark Wahlberg for being game enough to do nothing much but bare his (still very fit) upper torso. Although the additional “hook” in an action comedy is ostensibly the action sequences, these scenes in Date Night are actually the weakest in the show. Shawn Levy is not the most adept at directing action set-pieces, and it shows. However, such transgressions are forgivable given the strength of the lead pairing, and Date Night makes for an excellent date night movie.

Rating:  * * * (out of four stars)

Director:  Louis Leterrier

Writers: Travis Beacham, Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi, based on the 1981 screenplay of the same name by Beverley Cross

Cast: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Jason Flemyng, Gemma Arterton 

Running Length: 103 minutes

Synopsis: A retelling of the Greek tale of Perseus and a pseudo-remake of the original 1981 film Clash of the Titans, this remake 29 years later stars Sam Worthington as Perseus, demi-god son of Zeus (Liam Neeson). Like many heroes, he has to embark on a ten-day journey wrought with danger in order to save the beautiful Princess Andromeda (Alexa Davalos) from being sacrificed to the Kraken, a terrible sea monster. Along the way he meets both friend and foe, and in particular has to make a dangerous journey to the Underworld to obtain the head of Medusa to subdue the Kraken.

Review: Let’s get this out of the way, right away. DO NOT watch Clash of the Titans in 3D unless you’re feeling generous and want to contribute extra dollars to the cinema operators’ bottom line for a diminished experience. If Avatar is the reason 3D will flourish, “3D” shows like Clash of the Titans will be the reason that cinemagoers will eventually tire of the money grab and start going back to 2D. I spent 10 minutes in Clash of the Titans without my 3D glasses on and it made virtually no difference whatsoever, and in all seriousness the most 3D aspect of the film were the Chinese subtitles. It’s retrofitted 3D and done in a very poor manner, to the point that it detracts from the experience.

Having said that, take away the 3D element and this remake of Clash of the Titans is perfectly serviceable as a pre-summer action blockbuster. Although it takes a while to get started, once the action begins the film’s actually pretty entertaining. Many of us will probably not compare this remake favourably with the Ray Harryhausen original for sentimental, nostalgic reasons, but it cannot be denied that the 2010 version works slightly better because of the improved visuals and a lower cheesiness level.

The CGI found in Clash of the Titans is mostly top-notch, and in particular the Scorpiochs and Medusa are very well-rendered and almost believable – well as much as monsters can look believable. However, certain aspects don’t work that well, including the terribly cheesy “glowing armour” that the Gods wear. It almost feels like a snippet from the old Superman movies, with all the soft focus and dreamy lighting attempting perhaps to make Olympus look more ethereal. It does not work in the slightest.

Sam Worthington basically reprises his role from Avatar, even sporting a similar buzz cut, but here in Clash of the Titans he is never given a chance to really act. In fact, despite the presence of esteemed actors like Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes (as Hades), the acting is weak across the board and characters never become (pardon the expression) three dimensional. This is particularly apparent in the superfluous romantic subplot between Perseus and Io (Gemma Arterton), which is so poorly developed that one wonders why Leterrier even chose to leave it in the film.

It’s likely that audiences who watch Clash of the Titans in 2D (like it was meant to be watched) would be more charitable towards the film, but for those who watch it in “3D” may not feel so generous. In 2D, the movie is generally entertaining and a tolerable remake of the original film. In 3D, all the flaws become more pronounced – blurry action sequences, dim visuals, eye-watering (in a bad way)3D implementation – and coupled with a higher-priced ticket, makes for a very negative viewing experience.

Rating:  * * ½ (out of four stars)

Directors:  Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois

Writers: Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois, based on the book How to Train Your Dragon by Cressida Cowell

Voice Cast: Jay Baruchel, America Ferrera, Gerard Butler, Craig Ferguson, Jonah Hill, Kristin Wiig, David Tennant

Running Length: 98 minutes

Synopsis: Hiccup Horrendous Haddock III (Jay Baruchel) feels like a fish out of water in the Viking village of Berk. Although his father and village chief, Stoick the Vast (Gerard Butler) is a veteran dragon hunter, Hiccup prefers to spend his time designing gadgets and pining for spunky village girl Astrid (America Ferrera). However, Stoick makes the decision to have Hiccup train with the blacksmith Gobber (Craig Ferguson) on attacking dragons, despite his protests. At the same time, Hiccup chances upon an injured dragon in the woods and attempts to bond with it. He soon learns that the Viking-dragon feud could be nothing more than a misunderstanding, and that dragons are not as fearsome as they are thought to be.

Review: Dreamworks Animation has almost always played second fiddle to Pixar in the realm of computer animated movies, and since the excellent Shrek, there has never really been another Dreamworks film that could come close to any of Pixar’s films. This changes with the release of How to Train Your Dragon, which is an excellent film in many aspects, and quite possibly a very strong contender for the best animated film of the year (yes, kind of a big statement given that both Shrek 4 and Toy Story 3 are due in cinemas soon).

How to Train Your Dragon is a quintessential family film – although it offers something for the kids (though there are certain scarier portions that may not be all that suitable for the very young), the film is also engaging enough for the parents and other adult audiences. The visuals are colourful and fun, and this is the first film that I’ve watched in 3D since Avatar that seems to be worth the price of admission, and really helps to make the experience a more immersive one. Coincidentally, there are some similarities to Avatar apart from the 3D experience, but none intentionally so, I am sure.

The storyline follows a basic formula – outcast kid makes good and allows others to see the error of their ways – but the story is well-told and the clichés don’t matter as much. It helps that the dragons, initially portrayed as vicious creatures, turn out to be rather harmless and adorable (one word: kittens!), greatly enhancing the cuteness quotient of the movie. The main voice cast is also rather accomplished, and despite the strange choice of having many of the characters speak with a Scottish accent, everything works very well together.

How to Train Your Dragon has ticks in almost every box of the checklist – the movie looks good in both 2D and 3D, there are some thrilling (but some running a tad long) action sequences, the voice acting ranges from good to great, and the “take-home” family values message is a very positive one that parents would certainly endorse.  In a sea of mediocre releases, How to Train Your Dragon stands head and shoulders above many recent films, and if you’re hankering for a good 3D experience, then this would probably be your best bet.

Rating:  * * * ½ (out of four stars)