Director: Michael Sucsy

Writers: Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein, Michael Sucsy

Cast: Channing Tatum, Rachel McAdams, Jessica Lange, Sam Neill

Running Length: 105 minutes

Synopsis: A car accident puts Paige (McAdams) in a coma, and when she wakes up with severe memory loss, her husband Leo (Tatum) works to win her heart again.

Review: Despite a “based on true events” premise, The Vow is about as rote a romantic drama as it gets. In fact, it almost seems Nicholas Sparks had a hand in it, even though that’s not actually the case. This is a movie squarely targeted at the women, and its box office success in the US is testament to the power of this demographic. Unwilling husbands and boyfriends will no doubt be dragged to the cinema to catch this, and while it won’t be an entirely moot outing, it’s hard to imagine any (straight) men getting into this movie.   

The best thing about The Vow is Rachel McAdams, who puts forth a great performance despite the limiting material here. There is, however, little real chemistry between her and Channing Tatum, and as a result their tortured romance post-trauma never comes across as being quite believable. Channing Tatum is obviously here as a pretty face and body, and although he tries hard to emote (with uneven results), Tatum would be most remembered for his multiple bare-bodied scenes here, including one where he shows off his bubble butt. Jessica Lange and Sam Neill seem to be downgrading their career trajectories by appearing in a film like this one, but at least Lange gets one good scene out of the movie, essentially out-acting every other cast member in those few minutes.

The Vow isn’t afraid to come across as being a cheesy melodrama, and it embraces both aspects with aplomb. In its own way, that’s a charming thing to do and The Vow works well as a date movie. Unfortunately, those looking to vesting more emotion into the movie may find themselves somewhat disappointed – very little is done with the premise of the movie, and eventually the script writes itself into a corner with no way out. The Vow avoids some of the expected clichés – no second bump on the head to magically restore Paige’s memory, for example – but the scribes add nothing in to replace the void. There’s no pat denouement apart from an end title card detailing the outcome of the real life couple, but at least Michael Sucsy has managed to resist injecting forced tragedy into the tale, unlike how a Nicholas Sparks novel/movie would have panned out.      

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Writers: Dan Mazeau, David Johnson, Greg Berlanti

Cast: Sam Worthington, Liam Neeson, Ralph Fiennes, Rosamund Pike, Edgar Ramirez, Bill Nighy, Danny Huston

Running Length: 100 minutes

Synopsis: A decade after his heroic defeat of the monstrous Kraken, Perseus (Sam Worthington) – the demigod son of Zeus (Liam Neeson) – is attempting to live a quieter life as a village fisherman and the sole parent to his 10-year old son, Helius. Meanwhile, a struggle for supremacy rages between the gods and the Titans. Dangerously weakened by humanity's lack of devotion, the gods are losing control of the imprisoned Titans and their ferocious leader, Kronos, father of the long-ruling brothers Zeus, Hades (Ralph Fiennes) and Poseidon. Perseus cannot ignore his true calling when Hades, along with Zeus' godly son, Ares (Edgar Ramírez), switch loyalty and make a deal with Kronos to capture Zeus. The Titans' strength grows stronger as Zeus' remaining godly powers are siphoned...

Review: Few films in recent memory have benefitted from lowered expectations like Wrath of the Titans has – after all, its predecessor was a pretty terrible mess, from the clunky dialogue to the awful tacked on “3D” (the most 3D aspect being the Mandarin subtitles), and it really wouldn’t take much to improve upon that travesty of a remake. This time round, the story comes with much less baggage, and despite another post production 3D conversion, looks far better than the first film. That’s not to say that Wrath of the Titans is a masterpiece, but at least it’s much less painful to sit through, with a number of decent action set pieces, and the injection of much-need levity into the proceedings. It also helps to view this film on as large a screen as possible (IMAX 3D being the most ideal), as it amplifies the cinematic experience and makes the film’s flaws more tolerable.

And there’s no shortage of things to pick on in Wrath of the Titans, if one is inclined to do so. The dialogue is painfully clunky, with characters often delivering dialogue solely for exposition’s sake, and the script borders on incoherence very often. The production team does seem to be aware of that, and occasionally poke fun at themselves (at one point, one character tells another to “avoid the big speech”), which makes it a little more tolerable. There’s also a lot of soap opera going on for an action movie, and these exclusively male, uncomfortably melodramatic scenes really weigh down the narrative.

Still, the film largely looks good, and the action sequences are quite impressively choreographed, with the most memorable not being the climactic showdown, but rather a “smaller” scene involving a number of Cyclops and the lead characters. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes bring higher quality acting and gravitas to the table, while an almost unrecognizable Bill Nighy steals the show with his high energy portrayal of Hephaestus. Action junkies should still leave the cinema feeling sated, but here’s hoping that if there’s a third film in the franchise, that it would be a higher quality production all round.   

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Directors: Mark Neveldine & Brian Taylor

Writers: Scott M. Gimple, Seth Hoffman, David S. Goyer

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Ciaran Hinds, Johnny Whitworth, Fergus Riordan, Idris Elba

Running Length: 95 minutes

Synopsis: Johnny Blaze (Nicolas Cage) – still struggling with his curse as the devil's bounty hunter – is hiding out in a remote part of Eastern Europe when he is recruited by a secret sect of the church to save a young boy (Fergus Riordan) from the devil (Ciaran Hinds). At first, Johnny is reluctant to embrace the power of the Ghost Rider, but it is the only way to protect the boy – and possibly rid himself of his curse forever.

Review: It’s probably a sequel that not many people had expected – after all, the original Ghost Rider movie in 2007 wasn’t exactly a trailblazer, even though it did score a pretty healthy box office taking. This time round, the cheesy humour that was so prevalent in the first film is toned down (although there is an absolutely brilliant joke about Twinkies), and the directorial duo behind the Crank franchise seems a little out of their depth when putting together larger-scale action set pieces that aren’t as organic as those found in Crank. 

The acting in Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is simply rather uninspired, and even Nicolas Cage doesn’t tap that frequently into his “mad side”, a departure from the first Ghost Rider movie. However, Cage has always been an intense actor, and even though the audience will only get it in small doses it’s still an indication of what Cage is capable of. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast do not do as well, and many seem to be sleepwalking through the whole film.

Many audience members choose to watch a superhero movie to be visually dazzled by the CG and the action sequences, and in both aspects Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance falls a little short. Some of the CG is impressive but quality is rather uneven, and the addition of 3D feels mostly superfluous. The action sequences are also a little subpar, and doesn’t really impress excepting a handful of scenes. The climactic showdown turns out to be just a little anticlimactic, although it is preceded by a nicely choreographed car chase.   

The superhero movie genre has been transformed since films like Batman Begins came onto the scene, and whilst Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance would have been a perfectly serviceable genre film in the past, it quite simply will not be good enough when compared to the other superhero films that are set to be released this year.

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Clint Eastwood

Writer: Dustin Lance Black

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Judi Dench

Running Length: 137 minutes

Synopsis: J. Edgar explores the public and private life of one of the most powerful, controversial and enigmatic figures of the 20th century. As the face of law enforcement in America for almost fifty years, J. Edgar Hoover (Leonardo DiCaprio) was feared and admired, reviled and revered. But behind closed doors, he held secrets that would have destroyed his image, his career and his life.

Review: J. Edgar is not one of Clint Eastwood’s strongest works, despite an excellent lead performance and a number of compelling scenes. Perhaps this is due partially to Dustin Lance Black’s script, which seems reluctant to delve deeper into J. Edgar’s psyche, choosing instead to present a rather superficial view of the man. There are lengthy scenes in the film which are very low key, and this is likely to lead to an emotional disconnect with the audience members.

The narrative structure of J. Edgar is, surprisingly, rather clunky, although it depends on the usual flashback and flashback-within-flashback shorthand. Although brownie points should be given for tackling a story that spans 7 decades, the segue between “present” and “past” is sometimes rather clumsily done. What is also extremely jarring is the subpar makeup, and the worst offender is that of Armie Hammer, who looks like he’s two hundred years old under a layer of overdone speckled makeup that truly detracts from audience immersion.    

The only actor to rise above the makeup is Leonardo DiCaprio, who puts forth a career-best performance as J. Edgar, perfectly portraying every aspect of the man. He disappears into the role, which is an essential part of any successful biographical depiction. It’s certainly an Oscar-worthy performance, but DiCaprio is unfortunately snubbed in this year’s nominations. Unsurprisingly, the only other actor that impresses is Judi Dench (mercifully not drowned under makeup) in her small handful of scenes – the scene where she utters the chilling “I would rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son” is certainly one of the most emotionally impactful.  

What the script doesn’t shy away from is J. Edgar’s sexuality, and this is possibly one of the most overt depictions of J Edgar’s asexuality/homosexuality. Although it takes a while to get to J Edgar’s proclivities, when it does get there, the film is enlivened to such a great extent that his sexuality becomes the film’s focus. Not that there’s anything wrong in that, and this does make parts of the film somewhat akin to a tender love story (particularly the denouement), but given that plenty of J. Edgar’s life and career have been left out of the movie despite its length, one can’t help but feel slightly underwhelmed by the time the end credits roll.     

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Josh Trank

Writers: Max Landis & Josh Trank

Cast: Ashley Hinshaw, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan, Dane Dehaan, Michael Kelly

Running Length: 84 minutes

Synopsis: Three high school friends gain superpowers after making an incredible discovery. Soon, though, they find their lives spinning out of control and their bond tested as they embrace their darker sides.

Review: It’s not easy to be a fan of found footage movies – with the sickness-inducing camera shake and always flimsy excuses for the protagonists having a camera with them at all times, there are plenty of audience members who will not miss found footage movies if they all disappear overnight. However, Chronicle is a breath of relatively fresh air in this limited sub-genre, applying the found footage concept to the superhero movie, and the result is a very compelling piece of slightly flawed filmmaking.

Chronicle is basically an 84-minute answer to the question “what if you had superpowers?”, and it starts off lighthearted enough, with the three teenagers playing harmless pranks and messing with each other. The teens’ powers ramp up exponentially, the film quickly takes on a far darker edge, with Trank and Landis crafting a story with a number of surprising twists and turns despite what seems to be at first a very predictable film.   

One of the reasons why Chronicle works so well is in its casting – all three teenagers are charismatic in their own way, and the audience will definitely feel a connection to the trio. It may or may not be a compliment to their thespian skills to say that their portrayals of teenagers seem to come very close to real life. Of the three, Dane Dehaan is the most impressive, a Leonardo DiCaprio lookalike that plays Andrew, the most troubled teen of the trio. Trank also smartly chose to “document” some of the domestic issues that plague Andrew, which allows an insight into his backstory and fleshes out the character more than most similar films are able to.   

That’s not to say Chronicle is a perfect film – it requires a near-total suspension of disbelief, and eventually the film writes itself into a corner that it doesn’t really successfully extricate itself out of. Most glaringly, a short scene after the climactic showdown totally messes up the found footage conceit, and feels so out of place with the rest of the film Josh Trank should have simply edited it out of the movie entirely.

It’s not the only time that the film “cheats” a little, however, another example being replacing shakycam footage with steadier scenes by telling the audience that Andrew “holds” the camera with a telekinetic virtual tripod (to be honest, I am actually thankful for this). There are other sequences which do not fit into the film’s internal logic, but the movie is absorbing enough for audience members to overlook such lapses.

Made on the cheap with a budget of “only” US$15 million, the CG effects are a little hit and miss. Generally though, the effects are impressive enough, and despite the slightly chaotic end sequence, is a pretty thrilling film that doesn’t outstay its welcome. It’s definitely not a film for everyone, but given the right mindset (and a good resistance to motion sickness), Chronicle ranks as one of the first great surprises of 2012.  

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Brad Peyton

Writers: Brian Gunn and Mark Gunn, based on the novel The Mysterious Island by Jules Verne

Cast: Dwayne Johnson, Josh Hutcherson, Vanessa Hudgens, Luis Guzman, Michael Caine, Kristin Davis

Running Length: 94 minutes

Synopsis: The new journey begins when Sean receives a coded distress signal from a mysterious island where no island should exist—a place of strange life forms, mountains of gold, deadly volcanoes, and more than one astonishing secret. Unable to stop him from going, Sean’s new stepfather joins the quest. Together with a helicopter pilot and his beautiful, strong-willed daughter, they set out to find the island, rescue its lone inhabitant and escape before seismic shockwaves force the island under the sea and bury its treasures forever.

Review: We all know that a movie like Journey 2 isn’t going to win any major awards for direction, acting and scripting, but this doesn’t mean the film can’t be a rather enjoyable romp given the right set of expectations. It is what it is – Journey 2 is a family film targeted at entertaining the younger audience, and this it does remarkably well. When viewed in immersive IMAX 3D, the entire film actually resembles an extended theme park ride, complete with requisite chase sequences, big monsters, and the eventual escape from the island in an unconventional vehicle. Of course, everything is coated in a thick, thick coat of cheese. Kids are definitely going to enjoy the film, and the older viewers will find enough to entertain despite some uneven patches. 

It’s almost a given in any film nowadays to feature CGI work, and Journey 2 has some pretty top-notch special effects going for it. Although the audience will be aware that the majority of the film is green screen work, at least the CGI is well-integrated and does not distract. Action sequences are well done too, and there’s even good attention to detail, as evidenced by the meticulous design of the Nautilus that features in the latter part of the film.

One of the most memorable sequences is the “pec pop of love”, executed to brilliant, hilarious effect by Dwayne Johnson, and is certain to become a cult classic. Dwayne Johnson is truly the star of the show, energetically working his eyebrows to great effect, and unabashedly ladling on the cheesiness. The rest of the cast doesn’t fare so well, with Josh Hutcherson particularly being the weakest link despite being the other central character. Luis Guzman and Michael Caine both seem to be dialing it in, and it’s clear that none of their thespian skills were needed in a movie like this one.

So yes, Journey 2 is entirely over the top, and the film demands a total suspension of disbelief and a willingness to accept the film at face level. But as far as fluffy cinematic entertainment goes, it does its job pretty well. If you’re looking for a film to bring the entire family along over the festive season, Journey 2 would definitely be a safe bet.     

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Genre: Comedy / Drama

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Genre: Comedy / Musical

Director: James Bobin

Writers: Jason Segel & Nicholas Steger, based on characters created by Jim Henson

Cast: Jason Segel, Amy Adams, Chris Cooper, Rashida Jones

Running Length: 103 minutes

Synopsis: On vacation in Los Angeles, Walter, the world's biggest Muppet fan, his brother Gary (Jason Segel) and Gary’s girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams) from Smalltown, USA, discover the nefarious plan of oilman Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) to raze the Muppet Theater and drill for the oil recently discovered beneath the Muppets' former stomping grounds. To stage a telethon and raise the $10 million needed to save the theater, Walter, Mary and Gary help Kermit reunite the Muppets, who have all gone their separate ways: Fozzie now performs with a Reno casino tribute band called the Moopets, Miss Piggy is a plus-size fashion editor at Vogue Paris, Animal is in a Santa Barbara clinic for anger management, and Gonzo is a high-powered plumbing magnate. Will the Muppets be able to band together and save the theater in time?

Review: It’s sad but true – while most children will still recognize the Muppets, they are no longer as culturally relevant as back in the 70s and 80s. Anyone who is above the age of 30, however, will likely have fond memories of watching The Muppets Show or Sesame Street during the formative years of their lives (myself included, of course). As such, although The Muppets is positioned as a movie for the young ones, the adult viewers are likely to be the ones who will find themselves enjoying the movie (and riding the incessant waves of nostalgia). It’s still a fun watch for the kids, for sure, but there’s no doubt the older audiences are the ones who will be able to tap into the emotional centre of the film.

It’s not exactly a sophisticated plot, and the human actors aren’t given much to do. However, in the same vein as the older Muppets movies, The Muppets is chock-full of cameo appearances, and it’s quite fun to spot all the stars that appear in the film. Also, the fourth wall is repeatedly broken in the movie in amusing ways, which again is a nod to the history of the Muppets, on both the small and big screen.

Although positioned as a musical, there really aren’t that many songs and performances to truly classify The Muppets as a true musical. In fact, after the first reel, which does feature a number of decent song and dance performances, director James Bobin seems to divert his attention elsewhere, resulting in sporadic songs that feel increasingly at odds with the rest of the movie. However, of the 9 songs featured, 3 are classic Muppets songs, which will definitely be familiar to anyone who has grown up with the Muppets.

Despite its imperfections, The Muppets is great fun both for newcomers to the franchise and “old-timers”, and is certainly an excellent choice for families during this holiday. Who knows – with this reinvigoration, it may represent a new era for The Muppets, moving them back into the limelight, which would not be a bad thing at all.

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Bill Condon

Writer: Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel Breaking Dawn by Stephenie Meyer

Cast: Robert Pattinson, Kristen Stewart, Taylor Lautner

Running Length: 117 minutes

Synopsis: In Breaking Dawn Part One, the vampire Edward (Robert Pattinson) and human Bella (Kristen Stewart) are finally getting married, but an unexpected turn of events during their honeymoon threatens to unsettle their life together. Meanwhile, werewolf Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) is torn between loyalty to his wolfpack and his devotion to Bella. 

Review: The Twilight series is practically critic-proof – there’s a whole bunch of rabid Stephenie Meyer fans who want nothing more than to see the books come to life on the big screen, and then there’s the “Twi-mom” phenomenon where normally rational women go absolutely gaga over Robert Pattinson. Who cares about storyline, thespian skills and quality when box office triumph is assured? Well, certainly not Summit Entertainment, who has deemed it fit to split the final installment of the Twilight series into two movies in an obvious money grab, even if the material does not justify such a move. The film is not a total wash – the last reel is actually pretty well done – but so much of the movie feels so perfunctory that it’s hard to look past the movie’s many shortcomings.
 
If compared to the previous Twilight films, Breaking Dawn really is marginally better – because there’s actually something else going on other than endless teenage angst that plagued the previous installments. However, the much vaunted bedroom-destroying sex scene is so tame it’s almost laughable, the showdown between Jacob and the wolf pack is actually laughable, and only the climactic delivery of Bella’s half-vampire baby actually manages to (pun intended) deliver.

There’s really no acting talent to be found here, even if the actors themselves have shown thespian quality in other films (except Taylor Lautner who’s really not much of an actor in any movie so far). And although the film’s budget is not small, the CGI is somewhat questionable, especially the wolves which just doesn’t seem at all realistic. Given the blah screenplay by Melissa Rosenberg, even a lauded director like Bill Condon can’t do much to elevate the movie to anything beyond mediocre.

It’s probably not very fair to judge Breaking Dawn Part 1, since well, it is not a complete movie. However, extrapolating what has already played out on screen, it’s hard to imagine Part 2 being much improved over Part 1. That probably won’t matter, since this far down the road in the Twilight franchise, only die hard fans should even consider watching this movie, and would probably find the experience a worthwhile one.

Rating: ** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Chris Miller

Writers: Tom Wheeler, based on a story by Brian Lynch, Will Davies and Tom Wheeler

Voice Cast: Antonio Banderas, Salma Hayek, Zach Galifianakis, Billy Bob Thornton, Amy Sedaris

Running Length: 90 minutes

Synopsis: Long before he even met Shrek, the notorious fighter, lover and outlaw Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) becomes a hero when he sets off on an adventure with the tough and street smart Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek) and the mastermind Humpty Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) to save his town. This is the true story of The Cat, The Myth, The Legend…The Boots.

Review: After playing second fiddle to Shrek for three movies, the orange tabby finally gets his own movie, which seemed like a long time coming. The good news is that this Shrek spinoff manages to retain the trademark (slightly subversive) humour of the Shrek franchise, with more puns and visual gags than one can shake a sprig of catnip at, and also looks as good as any decent animated movie does nowadays. However, the story itself lacks imagination, and exists merely as a vehicle for the visuals and jokes to ride on. It remains a fairly entertaining movie but if only there was more once one scratches beneath the glossy veneer.

Cats are a cultural phenomenon on the internet, and rightly so – they can be really cute creatures to go gaga over, and yet have a regal nonchalance that is oddly alluring. Puss in Boots captures both aspects pretty well, especially since Antonio Banderas adds a sultry Spanish flair to the voice acting. However, despite the title of the movie, the true star of the film is Zach Galiafinakis and his Humpty Dumpty, a surprisingly nuanced character with complex, adult issues that almost seems out of place in what is essentially a movie catered for the younger audience. The film does not have the universality like many Pixar films, and these adult elements will not be readily identified by the kiddy set, but it’s always a pleasant surprise to find an animated film that does not talk down to its audience. However, that having been said, little is done with the deeper material, which results in a lack of resonance with the moral of the story.

The visuals as a whole are bright, colourful and detailed, and there are some truly memorable personifications of fairy tale and nursery rhyme characters (my favourite would have to be Jack and Jill, because they are the ones that confound expectations the most). Although it’s now a prerequisite for animated films to look good, Dreamworks probably does some of the best computer animated work after Pixar. Unlike many 3D films released nowadays, the third dimension in Puss in Boots isn’t used in a gimmicky manner, but does help to augment the film in terms of immersion. However, 3D does not lend itself well to higher-speed sequences, and there are some dance and action scenes which were a little overwhelming to watch.

The one biggest redeeming factor for Puss in Boots is simply that the film never takes itself too seriously. Once that mindset is in place, it’s easy to enjoy the movie for what it is – short, cinematic fluff that won’t fail to entertain even the most jaded cinemagoers. It even throws in a Lady Gaga song for good measure – and as the leading purveyor of pop culture these days, who can really argue with that?  

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Tarsem Singh

Writers: Charles Parlapanides & Vlas Parlapanides

Cast: Henry Cavill, Mickey Rourke, Stephen Dorff, Freida Pinto, Luke Evans, John Hurt

Running Length: 110 minutes

Synopsis: Eons after the Gods won their mythic struggle against the Titans, a new evil threatens the land. Mad with power, King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) has declared war against humanity. Amassing a bloodthirsty army of soldiers disfigured by his own hand, Hyperion has scorched Greece in search of the legendary Epirus Bow, a weapon of unimaginable power forged in the heavens by Ares. 

Only he who possesses this bow can unleash the Titans, who have been imprisoned deep within the walls of Mount Tartaros since the dawn of time and thirst for revenge. In the king’s hands, the bow would rain destruction upon mankind and annihilate the Gods. But ancient law dictates the Gods must not intervene in man’s conflict. They remain powerless to stop Hyperion, until a peasant named Theseus (Henry Cavill) comes forth as their only hope.

Secretly chosen by Zeus, Theseus must save his people from Hyperion and his hordes. Rallying a band of fellow outsiders – including visionary priestess Phaedra (Freida Pinto) and cunning slave Stavros (Stephen Dorff) – one hero will lead the uprising, or watch his homeland fall into ruin and his Gods vanish into legend. 

Review: It is undeniable that Immortals is a visually gorgeous film – this really comes as no surprise since the director is Tarsem Singh, who has helmed two breathtakingly beautiful movies prior to Immortals (The Cell and The Fall). If you’re looking for a film with eye candy, Immortals has that in spades – every visual aspect is immaculate, from the magnificent digitally-created locales (Greece seems to be composed entirely of cities carved out of mountains and villages residing on precipitous cliffs) to the Oscar-worthy costumes designed by Eiko Ishioka, and the sumptuous colours employed to great effect in many scenes, this is probably one of the most aesthetically pleasing films I have seen in years.

Even the action sequences are choreographed with a hyper-realistic sensibility. Rarely has blood and brains splattering looked so interesting and beautiful, although it can really be too much to take in at times, especially when viewing the film in 3D. However, it must be said that the implementation of 3D in Immortals is pretty accomplished, and subtly enhances the look and feel of the movie.

Yet, Immortals’ beauty is really only skin deep. The storyline is weak and uninspired, taking liberties with Greek mythology and at times not really making much sense at all. Various scenes seem to be building up to something greater, but never really go anywhere. There’s virtually no character development, and some of the Greek gods are given such inexplicably short screen times that it almost seems blasphemous. Thankfully the cast is good looking and distracts somewhat from their one-dimensionality – the men are all muscle and machismo, whereas the women (Freida Pinto in particular) are curvaceous and gorgeous.   

When compared with recent films in a similar vein, Immortals does not surpass what has been achieved by 300, but is far better than Clash of the Titans. However, it scores a perfect ten in terms of looks, and if one’s expectations are adjusted accordingly, could be worth the time in the cinema.

Rating: **1/2 (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Steven Spielberg

Writers: Steven Moffatt and Edgar Wright & Joe Cornish, based on the comic series Tintin by Hergé

Cast: Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis, Daniel Craig, Simon Pegg, Nick Frost

Running Length: 107 minutes

Synopsis: Uniting elements from three Hergé Tintin adventures: The Crab With The Golden Claws, The Secret Of The Unicorn and Red Rackham’s Treasure, intrepid Belgian reporter Tintin (Jamie Bell), along with his intelligent canine sidekick Snowy, is on the trail of sunken treasure, together with the brutish alcoholic Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis).

Review: Count me in as one of the skeptics when this Tintin project was announced – performance capture animation has been pretty hit and miss (mostly the latter) and Tintin is such a well-loved classic that it seemed at first glance that this is surely destined for disaster, even with Steven Spielberg at the helm and Peter Jackson on board as producer. Turns out that all the fears are unfounded – this is an excellent action adventure – a spiritual successor to Spielberg’s seminal Indiana Jones trilogy (yes, I am ignoring the Crystal Skull installment for obvious reasons), and certainly one of the best family films to be released this year.

Having now seen the finished product, it’s hard to imagine what Tintin would have been if it had followed Spielberg’s original vision of a live action movie – kudos to Peter Jackson for apparently convincing Spielberg to go with a digitally animated version. The benefit of existing solely in a digital space is readily apparent, particularly with an amazing mid-movie sequence where Captain Haddock recounts a part of his family history. The number of inventive transitions, crossfades, and other visual flourishes that fill that sequence simply could not have been achieved with live action, even with copious amount of CGI thrown in. This is also a rare film that does well in 3D, while not being in-your-face, helps to immerse the viewer further into the surroundings.  

Previous films done in a similar manner – namely, The Polar Express and A Christmas Carol – have made the error of trying too hard to make the characters look human, resulting in a look that is firmly lodged in the Uncanny Valley. In Tintin, the approach is slightly different, with characters taking on an obvious cartoon quality while still imbuing them with a lot of human detail. This is probably one of the best examples of performance capture so far, alongside with what was achieved in Avatar.

The cast fares well too, with Andy Serkis again providing an excellent, scenes-stealing performance though not being “physically” present. Given that Tintin himself is pretty much an intentional blank slate for audiences and readers to project themselves onto, Jamie Bell also does a pretty good job. Unfortunately, one of the characters that have been somewhat given shorter shrift is Daniel Craig’s Sakharine, who is probably the most forgettable character in the whole movie, despite ostensibly being the villain.  

In other aspects, this is a quintessential Spielberg movie, even though it’s his first foray into animation. There are plenty of great action set pieces to be found here (though if one is critical, it actually borders a little on overkill), a good dose of humour thrown in, and a universality that means it will be equally well-received by both adults and children alike. A caveat – given the liberties that were taken with the source comic series, fanboys of the original Tintin may feel a fair amount of cognitive dissonance with the big screen rendition.

Before his passing in 1983, Hergé had commented that if his work was to be brought to the big screen, the only director he could envision accomplishing it would be Steven Spielberg. Almost three decades later, it turns out that he was right after all.

Rating: ***1/2 (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Giddens Ko

Writer: Giddens Ko

Cast: Ko Chen-Tung, Michelle Chen

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Andrew Niccol

Writer: Andrew Niccol

Cast: Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cilian Murphy, Olivia Wilde, Vincent Kartheiser

Running Length: 110 minutes

Synopsis: In Time is set in a world where time has replaced money as the universal currency. The wealthy have accumulated thousands of years, allowing them to live forever, while the poor beg, borrow, and steal enough minutes to make it through the day. In this world, Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is one of the unlucky ones, waking up every morning with 23 hours left on his ticking clock, and the knowledge that if he doesn't earn enough time, he won't live to see tomorrow. But Will's fortune takes an unexpected turn when a wealthy stranger turns up dead, and Will finds himself 100 years richer. Now the prime suspect for the man's murder, Will is on the run, with the help of a beautiful young woman (Amanda Seyfried), who is the only one who believes he is innocent.

Review: It’s a fascinating concept – what if time is the only currency we trade in? Andrew Niccol takes this idea to an extreme in In Time, and whilst this is a slick, entertaining action thriller that’s extremely apt for this era we’re in (pardon the pun but the timing could not be better, given the growing disparity between the haves and the have-nots), it does eventually slightly wear down the viewer because it’s a very singular concept that doesn’t offer much wiggle room. Once the idea has been presented, there’s only that much that can be done before it starts to feel repetitive. The fact that the movie runs almost 2 hours long, with an extremely heavy handed use of time-related metaphors (and more time puns than you can shake a stick at), only serves to exacerbate this issue.

However, there are a lot of things going on for the movie that help to elevate the film above mediocrity. Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried make a good looking couple, and the duo share an easy chemistry though they never really light up the screen. They are more like a pair of fun-loving, sharp-dressing BFFs, but this isn’t really a downside since the pairing still works in principle. The rest of the cast are also quite effective, and it’s clear that Niccol spent some effort in casting actors that are somewhat ageless in appearance.  

Where In Time truly shines is in its impeccable production values. Not only is the cinematography breathtaking, thanks to seasoned cinematographer Roger Deakins, the art direction is near flawless, starting with multiple Oscar-winning Colleen Atwoods’ gorgeous costumes to the amazing set and prop designs. It’s clear that much thought has been put into even the littlest details, and In Time is a superlative effort when it comes to aesthetics. 

Look past some little niggles in the plot (it’s never explained why humans stop aging at 25, and why everyone’s lifespan is limited to just an extra year, for example), and In Time manages to function very well as an eye candy film, extending beyond the actors and into the look and feel of the film itself. For an action film released in the “off season”, one could certainly do worse than what has been accomplished here.          

Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Mark Mylod

Writers: Gabrielle Allan & Jennifer Crittenden

Cast: Anna Faris, Chris Evans

Running Length: 107 minutes

Synopsis: Anna Faris is Ally Darling, an offbeat young woman who decides, after hitting the un-magical number of 20 lovers, to re-visit all her ex-boyfriends in the hopes of finding the man of her dreams. She’s assisted in her quest by her womanizing neighbor Colin (Chris Evans).

Review: If you’ve seen the recently-released Bridesmaids, What’s Your Number? may seem a little too familiar, because the two films actually cover pretty similar ground. And of course, like most romantic comedies out there, What’s Your Number? is no different from the run of the mill, bringing nothing new to the table.

Not that it’s expected to – after all, fans of romantic comedies are already aware of the eventual outcomes of almost every film that’s in the genre, and what matters is the journey, not the destination, which usually translates to the on-screen chemistry between the two leads. This is where, unfortunately, What’s Your Number falls short – although Anna Faris and Chris Evans make a good looking couple, they do not share a strong chemistry and their pairing feels forced even at the end of the film. Their banter is great, but there’s just too little of it in the film to convince audiences of their viability as a couple.   

The film does slightly better on the comedy aspect, with a handful of standout moments that will at the very least leave a smile on your face. I have been a casual fan of Anna Faris since her breakout performance in Scary Movie, and she is a dependable actress that can deliver the comedic goods. However, the scenarios do get a little contrived at times, and the core concept of revisiting one’s ex-boyfriends to find The One just doesn’t feel that believable.

What’s Your Number succeeds on two counts – Faris’ easy likeability and Evans’ frequently bare (and very buff) body. Faris has made it her specialty to play what essentially is a dumb blonde, ready to embarrass her characters in ways that many leading ladies would balk at doing, and this “human-ness” and authenticity is what makes Faris, and by extension her characters, highly likeable and easy to root for.

Chris Evans, on the other hand, is aware that one of his most prized assets is his body, and in this R-rated comedy ensures that no audience member would miss seeing his Captain America physique by parading in various stages of undress for much of the film. And for anyone who is watching the movie to make goo goo eyes at Evans, the payoff is more than sufficient.

Whilst What’s Your Number? is nowhere near the top-tier romantic comedies, it doesn’t rank too lowly either, existing somewhere in the middle – pleasant enough to not make it feel like a waste of time, but not memorable in any significant way.    

Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Genre: Action/Drama

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Director: Will Gluck

Writers: Keith Merryman & David A. Newman and Will Gluck

Cast: Mila Kunis, Justin Timberlake, Patricia Clarkson, Richard Jenkins, Woody Harrelson, Jenna Elfman  

Running Length: 109 minutes

Synopsis: Dylan (Justin Timberlake) and Jamie (Mila Kunis) think it's going to be easy to add the simple act of sex to their friendship, despite what Hollywood romantic comedies would have them believe. They soon discover however that getting physical really does always lead to complications.

Review: I hate to sound like a broken record, but this is a necessary precursor to reviews of any romantic comedy – it’s never the plot and always the chemistry. Yes, we’ve all seen movies like Friends with Benefits a thousand times before, and the ground it treads is so well worn that there are really zero surprises to be had (in fact, just earlier this year we had the similarly-themed No Strings Attached). However, Friends with Benefits has one thing in its favour: there’s excellent chemistry between Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake, which makes this a relatively enjoyable romantic comedy to sit through.

Since the storyline makes zero deviations from the norm, apart from the slightly cheekier aspect of the couple being sexual partners before true feelings develop, there’s really no point speaking about the plot. Friends with Benefits’ strength lies in its actors – sparks fly between Mila and Justin, but the supporting cast is what really pushes the film one level higher. Patricia Clarkson is perfectly cast as the bohemian, devil-may-care mother of Jamie, and Richard Jenkins is outstanding as Dylan’s father, suffering from Alzheimer’s. Even Woody Harrelson is highly memorable as the flamboyant gay sports editor of GQ magazine, whose transportation to work is more than a little unusual. And then there's the excellent snippets of a "romantic comedy" that plays out as a film within a film, with great cameos of Jason Segel and Rashida Jones.

Having directed Easy A before this, director Will Gluck seems to be developing a modus operandi – taking a familiar genre and coaxing great performances out from the cast members to differentiate the film from the run-of-the-mill – and so far it’s been quite successful. Many small scenes in Friends with Benefits take jabs at the conventions in romantic comedies, and it does seem a little “meta” that the film itself ticks off so many checkboxes in that same list, but as long as the film works as a whole, this isn’t really an issue at all. Friends with Benefits is a pleasant romp through familiar scenery that doesn’t outstay its welcome, and a good enough hour-plus diversion to warrant a trip to the cinemas.

P.S. If you’re so inclined, there’s a very short (but largely inconsequential) coda at the end of the credits that you could stay for.

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

Genre: Thriller

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Permalink | Leave a comment  »