e-ramblings http://e-ramblings.com YH writes film. posterous.com Sun, 05 Feb 2012 06:41:07 -0800 Chronicle * * * http://e-ramblings.com/chronicle http://e-ramblings.com/chronicle Genre: Science Fiction

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Fri, 20 Jan 2012 16:36:39 -0800 Journey 2: The Mysterious Island * * * http://e-ramblings.com/journey-2-the-mysterious-island http://e-ramblings.com/journey-2-the-mysterious-island Genre: Action

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Fri, 09 Dec 2011 18:43:00 -0800 New Year's Eve * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/new-years-eve-12 http://e-ramblings.com/new-years-eve-12

Genre: Comedy / Drama

Director: Garry Marshall

Writer: Katherine Fugate

Cast: Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Efron, Robert De Niro, Halle Berry, Jessica Biel, Seth Meyers, Katherine Heigl, Jon Bon Jovi, Ashton Kutcher, Lea Michele, Sarah Jessica Parker, Abigail Breslin, Josh Duhamel, Hilary Swank, Ludacris, Hector Elizondo,

Running Length: 118 minutes

Synopsis: The lives of several couples and singles in New York intertwine over the course of New Year's Eve.

Review: Garry Marshall is back at the helm of yet another film in the ensemble cast genre after last year’s Valentine’s Day, and ups the ante this time by including even more celebrities (with some repeat appearances) and tackling a holiday far more ubiquitous than Valentine’s Day. However, the same problems that plagued Valentine’s Day resurfaces in New Year’s Eve – there are just too many things going on for one movie to address, and the result is a film that lacks focus and meat.

Although much of the film takes place around Times Square, the story involving Hilary Swank and the Times Square countdown isn’t as central as the story featuring Zac Efron and Michelle Pfeiffer. The checking off of Pfeiffer’s wishlist is an intriguing premise, but unfortunately the film simply doesn’t spend enough time to develop it further and to give it a satisfactory conclusion. The same can be said of every single storyline that develops (or more accurately, fails to develop) in the movie, and it’s tempting to imagine how much better New Year’s Eve could have been if at least half of the plots were cleaved off, and the remainder given a fairer share of the screen time.

Since most of the star wattage is simply used to power interest for the movie, a lot of the actors have roles that amount to nothing more than glorified cameos, and no one is really needed to showcase much thespian ability. The script does give pause for a few Oscar alumni to emote, but many of the scenes just feel too contrived to be able to wring much genuine emotion out from the audience. And though I am usually pretty tolerant of product placement in movies, New Year’s Eve does take it to a level so extreme that it borders on absurdity (yes, I’m looking at you, Nivea).   

As fluffy entertainment, New Year’s Eve is certainly qualified for the role. For anyone who enjoys spotting celebrity cameos the film definitely ticks all the boxes. However, the film is not as interesting as it thinks it is, and the mawkish sentimentality that pervades much of the movie actually hurts the film and take it down a notch further. It’s not a bad movie, for sure, and certainly better than Valentine’s Day, but still it barely manages to score a passing grade.

P.S. To make it the most bang for your buck, make sure to sit through the first half of the end credit sequence to catch some genuinely funny outtakes.

Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Thu, 08 Dec 2011 06:17:00 -0800 The Muppets * * * http://e-ramblings.com/the-muppets http://e-ramblings.com/the-muppets

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sun, 27 Nov 2011 17:31:13 -0800 The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part One * * http://e-ramblings.com/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-one http://e-ramblings.com/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-one Genre: Drama

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sun, 27 Nov 2011 08:15:18 -0800 Puss In Boots * * * http://e-ramblings.com/puss-in-boots http://e-ramblings.com/puss-in-boots Genre: Animation

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:08:18 -0800 Immortals * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/immortals-12 http://e-ramblings.com/immortals-12 Genre: Fantasy

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Wed, 09 Nov 2011 15:53:51 -0800 The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn * * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/the-adventures-of-tintin-the-secret-of-the-un http://e-ramblings.com/the-adventures-of-tintin-the-secret-of-the-un Genre: Action Adventure

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:19:01 -0800 You Are the Apple of My Eye * * * http://e-ramblings.com/you-are-the-apple-of-my-eye http://e-ramblings.com/you-are-the-apple-of-my-eye Genre: Drama

Director: Giddens Ko

Writer: Giddens Ko

Cast: Ko Chen-Tung, Michelle Chen

Running Length: 110 minutes

Synopsis: A coming of age tale revolving around Ko-Teng (Ko Chen-Tung) and several close friends, who are all nursing crushes on honour student Shen Chia-Yi (Michelle Chen). Naughty in nature, Ko-Teng is ordered by their homeroom teacher to sit in front of Chia-Yi for her to keep close tabs on him. The two don't see eye to eye at first but Ko-Teng gradually falls for her, who is always pressuring him to study hard. On the other hand, Shen becomes impressed by the contrasting values he represents. A tentative courtship begins between the two, but both parties seem hesitant to commit to each other. 

Review: Nostalgia is a very powerful tool, and anyone who has loved and/or lost a sweetheart in the growing up years (and who hasn’t?) will certainly find You Are the Apple of My Eye to be a gently evocative, bittersweet experience. Based on Gidden Ko’s semi-autobiographical novel (the literal translation of the title for both the novel and movie is The Girl We Pursued Together In Those Years), this is a reasonably well-directed and well-acted film, and is largely (sadly, not entirely) devoid of the soppy melodrama that is rather prevalent in Taiwanese film and TV productions.

The film is split into three distinct portions, high school, university and the post-school years, with the high school part taking up the most screen time. It’s also the best segment of the film, with Giddens balancing drama and (admittedly puerile) humour with a deft hand, and is bolstered by excellent performances all round. The fresh-faced, young actors are perfectly cast, and newcomer Ko Chen-Tung is particularly impressive, exuding a charisma that is undeniable and hence a great fit for Giddens’ alter ego.

However, the latter two portions of the film take a little of the shine away, as the plot starts to wear the audience down, especially because much of the proceedings run along a pretty predictable line. The upside is that audiences who hate unresolved plot threads will have nothing to worry about, as everything is fully resolved by the time the credits roll. A more minor niggle is that there’s almost no attention paid to the aging of the characters, and they look almost the same throughout, even though the progression is approximately 16 years.

Though not a perfect film by any measure, there’s so much heart in You Are the Apple of My Eye that it’s easy to forgive its flaws. On a personal level, it turns out that Giddens (and hence all the characters in the film) is the same age as I am, and perhaps this is the reason why the film resonates with me on so many levels. If you are planning on watching only one Asian mainstream release this year, make it this one.

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Fri, 28 Oct 2011 08:57:03 -0700 In Time * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/in-time-12 http://e-ramblings.com/in-time-12 Genre: Action Thriller

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sat, 22 Oct 2011 09:50:46 -0700 Killer Elite * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/killer-elite-12 http://e-ramblings.com/killer-elite-12 Genre: Action Thriller

Director: Gary McKendry

Writers: Gary McKendry & Matt Schering, based on the novel The Feather Men by Ranulph Fiennes

Cast: Jason Statham, Clive Owen, Robert De Niro

Running Length: 118 minutes

Synopsis: Inspired by true events, Killer Elite follows the exploits of Danny (Jason Statham), one of the world's most skilled special-ops agents. Lured out of self-imposed exile, Danny reassembles his crack team of operatives to execute a near-impossible mission of retribution – to rescue his former mentor and partner Hunter (Robert De Niro). Together they must penetrate the highly feared and respected military unit, the British Special Air Service (SAS), to take down a rogue cell of soldier assassins and their leader Spike (Clive Owen) before their actions create a global crisis.

Review: On the surface, Killer Elite seems to feature a perfect cast – tough guys Jason Statham and Clive Owen facing off each other, and with Robert De Niro to boot – but the picture is not that rosy in reality. This is a classic case of “too much of a good thing”: Killer Elite simply throws too much at the audience, with a very complex plot structure that many viewers would simply give up trying to follow eventually. Thankfully, the action in the film is very well executed, so the film somewhat balances out into an action thriller that stakes its place in the middle of the pack.

One of the biggest problems with Killer Elite is that the plot threads come thick and heavy, and much of it really makes no sense at all even if you are paying close attention. In fact, much of the movie feels disjointed and the flow from one segment to the next is usually quite jarring. This could be because the book The Feather Men, the inspiration behind the film, has been accused of factual inaccuracies and even outright untruths, and so adapting the source into a film turns into a clumsy dance around the facts. One of the worst-developed subplots is the romantic angle between Statham and his beau (Yvonne Strahovski – who is probably getting more screen time than needed because of her fame on the small screen as the femme fatale in Chuck) which is never convincing and feels particularly tacked onto the proceedings.

Although the promo for the film tries to suggest that Killer Elite features the three actors evenly, the truth is that it’s simply a Jason Statham movie, with Clive Owen and Robert De Niro as guest stars. In fact, De Niro is pretty much out of the picture throughout the whole film except the first and last reels. There’s actually nothing wrong with Killer Elite being all about Jason Statham, because like most of his movies, Killer Elite is chock full of hard-hitting action, high-adrenaline car chases and more shootouts than you can shake a stick at. It’s highly visceral and highly entertaining, provided you are in the right mindset. One does wish that with stars of such caliber like Owens and De Niro on board, something more could have been done with them than just being impressive window dressing.   

Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Fri, 21 Oct 2011 10:36:12 -0700 What's Your Number? * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/whats-your-number-12 http://e-ramblings.com/whats-your-number-12 Genre: Romantic Comedy

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sat, 08 Oct 2011 21:08:00 -0700 Real Steel * * * http://e-ramblings.com/real-steel http://e-ramblings.com/real-steel

Genre: Action/Drama

Director: Shawn Levy

Writer: John Gatins, suggested by the short story "Steel" by Richard Matheson

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Dakota Goyo, Evangeline Lilly, Anthony Mackie, Kevin Durand, Hope Davis, James Rebhorn

Running Length: 127 minutes

Synopsis: A gritty, white-knuckle, action ride set in the near-future where the sport of boxing has gone high-tech, Real Steel stars Hugh Jackman as Charlie Kenton, a washed-up fighter who lost his chance at a title when 2000-pound, 8-foot-tall steel robots took over the ring. Now nothing but a small-time promoter, Charlie earns just enough money piecing together low-end bots from scrap metal to get from one underground boxing venue to the next. When Charlie hits rock bottom, he reluctantly teams up with his estranged son Max (Dakota Goyo) to build and train a championship contender. As the stakes in the brutal, no-holds-barred arena are raised, Charlie and Max, against all odds, get one last shot at a comeback.

Review: It's not often said for a two-plus hour movie, but there's so much going on in Real Steel that the running time actually feels too short to accommodate everything. This isn't exactly a compliment, since it points to the film being slightly overstuffed, but the good news is that Real Steel is a pretty decent attempt at merging the father-and-son movie together with the David-vs-Goliath sports movie despite its flaws.

Much like how a romantic comedy works, the sports movie needs to have the audience rallying behind the protagonists, and this Real Steel manages to do well. The robot bouts are high energy and quite exciting to watch, especially because the robots are given very distinct visual identities and are extremely convincing works of CGI, which coupled with the good action choreography, presents quite a spectacle.

Although the conclusion is pretty foregone from the beginning, it does help that most audiences will be quite vested in Atom's fate. The human actors are all pretty decent, with the best developed interactions being between father and son (of course), and only Evangeline Lilly being shafted by being an almost one-dimensional love interest to Hugh Jackman.

However, one of the biggest issues of Real Steel is how heavily the film ladles on the sentiment. The omnipresent score by Danny Elfman rises and ebbs, providing an extremely blatant indicator to how audiences should be feeling at any one point. The finale is replete with schmaltzy scenes of tears rolling slowly down cheeks and almost every other cliché in the playbook, and the very heavy-handed manipulation may turn off the more jaded cinemagoers in the theatre.

Having said that, most of Real Steel is very watchable, and the final bout between Atom and Zeus is about as exciting as any other well-directed boxing flick, even with it being constructed wholly with CGI. And despite the 127-minute running time, very little of the film feels draggy or superfluous. If you can get past the cheesiness of it all, Real Steel will present a solid two hours of entertainment.

Rating: * * * (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sun, 02 Oct 2011 01:32:55 -0700 Friends with Benefits * * * http://e-ramblings.com/friends-with-benefits http://e-ramblings.com/friends-with-benefits Genre: Romantic Comedy

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  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sat, 10 Sep 2011 20:43:00 -0700 Contagion * * * http://e-ramblings.com/contagion http://e-ramblings.com/contagion

Genre: Thriller

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Writer: Scott Z. Burns

Cast: Matt Damon, Gwyneth Paltrow, Marion Cotillard, Laurence Fishburne, Jude Law, Jennifer Ehle, Kate Winslet

Running Length: 105 minutes

Synopsis: Contagion follows the rapid progress of a lethal airborne virus that kills within days. As the fast moving epidemic grows, the worldwide medical community races to find a cure and control the panic that spreads faster than the virus itself. At the same time, ordinary people struggle to survive in a society coming apart.

Review: if not for the multitude of A-list stars that populate this movie, it would be easy to mistake Contagion to be a documentary of a real virus outbreak. The trailer may lead one to believe that this is a melodramatic, high-octane thriller, but the truth is quite far removed from that. This is a controlled, meticulously filmed movie that almost feels like a reality program, and the extent to which it potentially mirrors real life is rather disturbing to say the least.

Soderbergh is one of the most versatile directors of our time, and although the multi-prong structure is something that he had already explored (with great success) in Traffic, the complex narrative in Contagion is still a welcome change from the current norm. The screenplay by Scott Z. Burns runs the gamut, covering personal, familial life to much broader national and global perspectives, and yet manages to marry most of them together pretty well. There are almost no melodramatic moments in Contagion, but the film cuts so close to home that it is more gripping and disconcerting than any action-thriller that I have seen in a long while.       

With the amount of talent on hand, it’s not difficult to find at least a couple of great performances in Contagion. Matt Damon is quietly effective as the grieving husband and overprotective father, and both Kate Winslet and Marion Cotillard are highly memorable in the handful of scenes they feature in. The standout, however, is Jennifer Ehle, whose portrayal of the fearless Dr Ally Haskell is one of the most dimensional, and easily becomes one of the emotional centres of the film that many audience members would identify with.

This isn’t a perfect film by any measure – it does begin to lose steam in its final reel, and with the many varied storylines and characters it was only natural that a few of the subplots feel unfinished even when the credits roll. It may probably have been better to have left some parts out – the Jude Law component to me felt particularly superfluous – but as a whole this is a very absorbing movie, and one that will definitely leave you with much food for thought (and reaching for the hand sanitizer).

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sat, 03 Sep 2011 20:18:32 -0700 Crazy Stupid Love * * * http://e-ramblings.com/crazy-stupid-love http://e-ramblings.com/crazy-stupid-love Genre: Romantic Comedy

Directors: Glenn Ficarra & John Requa

Writer: Dan Fogelman

Cast: Steve Carrell, Julianne Moore, Ryan Gosling, Emma Stone

Running Length: 118 minutes

Synopsis: Fortysomething, straight-laced Cal Weaver (Steve Carell) is living the dream – good job, nice house, great kids and marriage to his high school sweetheart. But when Cal learns that his wife, Emily (Julianne Moore), has cheated on him and wants a divorce, his “perfect” life quickly unravels. Worse, in today’s single world, Cal, who hasn’t dated in decades, stands out as the epitome of un-smooth. Now spending his free evenings sulking alone at a local bar, the hapless Cal is taken on as wingman and protégé to handsome, thirtysomething player Jacob Palmer (Ryan Gosling). In an effort to help Cal get over his wife and start living his life, Jacob opens Cal’s eyes to the many options before him: flirty women, manly drinks and a sense of style that can’t be found at Supercuts or The Gap. Despite Cal’s makeover and his many new conquests, the one thing that can’t be made over is his heart, which seems to keep leading him back to where he began.  

Review: It’s very difficult to find a fresh romantic comedy these days, as this is one of the genres that have literally been done to death. This is why Crazy Stupid Love comes across as a surprise – it’s funny and touching at the same time, and whilst not all its attempts at breaking out of the confines of the romantic comedy are successful, it’s different enough to set it apart from many similar films.

Crazy Stupid Love is essentially an ensemble movie much like Love, Actually and its ilk, but the film has a smaller cast with stronger associations to each other. However, the film also suffers from character bias, with some characters getting much more screen time than the rest. This isn’t necessarily a flaw, but all the characters in Crazy Stupid Love are so interesting that the imbalance may leave some audiences craving for more. It is to the cast’s credit that almost the entire ensemble is engaging, with even the younger actors putting in a relatively good effort.

The standout is Ryan Gosling, who has proven repeatedly that he is a great actor, and in Crazy Stupid Love he brings the right mix of smarminess and vulnerability, and although he has relatively less screen time compared to Steve Carrell, Gosling’s scenes (especially those with Emma Stone) are very memorable. Julianne Moore has even less face time, but her nuanced portrayal of a middle-aged woman in a quandary about her love and married life is one of the best I’ve seen in years. There’s also great chemistry between the main leads, and in a romantic comedy this is what ultimately makes or breaks the film.

One of the other little pleasures of Crazy Stupid Love lies in its excellent soundtrack, which features an eclectic mix of music ranging from Thievery Corporation to Nina Simone. Music can add a lot of texture to a film, and this is definitely the case in Crazy Stupid Love. (A side note, Late Night Alumni’s You Can Be the One is featured in the film but not on the soundtrack album – definitely a song to check out)

Interestingly, it’s the smaller scenes in Crazy Stupid Love that work well – some truly standout sequences include a phone conversation between Steve Carrell and Julianne Moore, and another scene in which Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone make drunken small talk. In contrast, the big, plot-resolving set pieces near the end of the film feel farcical and artificial, and is one of the reasons why the film doesn’t rank higher on my list of romantic comedies. However, it manages to hit a good number of right notes as a romantic comedy, and is definitely one of the better films released of late.

Rating: *** (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sun, 28 Aug 2011 01:30:40 -0700 Cars 2 * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/cars-2-12 http://e-ramblings.com/cars-2-12 Genre: Animation

Directors: John Lasseter and Brad Lewis

Writer: Ben Queen

Voice Cast: Owen Wilson, Larry the Cable Guy, Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, Eddie Izzard, John Turturro, Bonnie Hunt

Running Length: 105 minutes

Synopsis: Star racecar Lightning McQueen (voice of Owen Wilson) and the incomparable tow truck Mater (voice of Larry the Cable Guy) take their friendship to exciting new places in Cars 2 when they head overseas to compete in the first-ever World Grand Prix to determine the world’s fastest car. But the road to the championship is filled with plenty of potholes, detours and surprises when Mater gets caught up in an intriguing adventure of his own: international espionage. Torn between assisting Lightning McQueen in the high-profile race and towing the line in a top-secret spy mission, Mater’s action-packed journey leads him on an explosive chase through the streets of Japan and Europe, trailed by his friends and watched by the whole world. Adding to the fast-paced fun is a colorful new all-car cast that includes secret agents, menacing villains and international racing competitors.

Review: It had to happen eventually – Pixar has finally released a film that doesn’t meet up to the usual expectations that a Pixar film sets. It’s still a very decent animated film, but is very apparently the studio’s weakest offering to date. Perhaps it’s because Cars was already a tough sell (anthropomorphic cars are not easy to identify with), but Cars 2 comes up short especially in the areas which are usually Pixar’s strengths.

Cars 2 is the first Pixar film where I felt held very little interest for the adult viewers, and whilst young viewers will undoubtedly have a ball of a time, the storyline is never really emotionally engaging on any level. This comes as a surprise because the relationship stuff is usually the core of a Pixar film, but this seems to have been eschewed for obligatory, tacked-on mentions about not giving up on friends. There is also very little about Cars 2 that feels fresh, and unlike Toy Story, Cars 2 brings nothing new to the table at all, despite the spy movie angle and opening up the Cars universe to beyond Radiator Springs.

Whatever criticisms that can be leveled at the other aspects of the film, one thing that hasn’t changed is the visual quality of a Pixar film. This is a seriously good looking movie, and apart from the well-rendered cars themselves, there’s great attention to detail in the surroundings they are in. The 3D, however, is so minimal that one wonders why 3D was even touted to begin with. It’s definitely not gimmicky, but doesn’t add much to the viewing experience overall.

Perhaps it’s telling that even the animated short film that precedes Cars 2 feels perfunctory, unlike the usual gems that the studio produces. It features almost the full Toy Story cast, but other than a couple of laughs, feels more like an outtake reel of Toy Story 3. Hopefully this is merely an aberration in Pixar’s illustrious history, and not a sign of things to come.  

Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Sat, 27 Aug 2011 18:21:40 -0700 Final Destination 5 * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/final-destination-5-12 http://e-ramblings.com/final-destination-5-12 Genre: Horror
 
Director: Steven Quayle

Writers: Eric Heisserer, Jeffrey Reddick

Cast: Nicholas D'Agosto, Emma Bell, Arlen Escarpeta, Tony Todd

Running Length: 92 minutes

Synopsis: In Final Destination 5, Death is just as omnipresent as ever, and is unleashed after one man’s premonition saves a group of coworkers from a terrifying suspension bridge collapse. But this group of unsuspecting souls was never supposed to survive, and, in a terrifying race against time, the ill-fated group frantically tries to discover a way to escape Death’s sinister agenda.

Review: By this fifth installment, the intentions of the Final Destination franchise are clear – find interesting and macabre ways to kill off all the primary actors one by one, which leaves the door open for another sequel with a brand new cast of fresh faces. Clearly this is a formula that works, because the franchise as a whole has already earned over US$600 million, making it one of the most profitable horror franchises of our time.

It truly is moot to discuss strength of the plot and the thespian skills of the actors in Final Destination 5 (although to be fair, they actually do a semi-decent job), because the film will almost be entirely judged on the death scenes. In this aspect, Final Destination 5 does not disappoint at all. Blatantly misdirecting the audience and pulling out unexpected twists as always, for the target audience these “money shots” will be what they had ponied up good money for. Personally, these sequences largely find the “sweet spot” between being shocking and being macabrely funny, but the intense situations and unabashed gore may prove too unsettling for some (which beggars the question of why they would be watching this movie to begin with).

There’s also the added bonus of some truly funny scenes, one of the most memorable starring a no-nonsense massage therapist cum acupuncturist. This is a welcome return to form as the Final Destination installments that play it straight are the ones which in my opinion fare more poorly. After all, one simply cannot take such a film too seriously, otherwise it defeats the purpose entirely.

Although there is a much vaunted new mechanic to the modus operandi of Death in this sequel, the film essentially fails to capitalize on this, and if not for the denouement, would probably have been forgotten by the second reel. However, there is quite a neat reveal near the end of the film that provides an interesting connection to its predecessors, but probably won’t be apparent to audiences who have not sat through the previous films.

The second film in the franchise to be shot in 3D, the third dimension is used in the most obvious manner possible, but really doesn’t add that much to the equation. It’s more like a theme park attraction, and this description can be expanded to include the spirit of the whole film. Final Destination 5 is designed to be a quick, entertaining ride through a veritable House of Horrors, to be forgotten almost immediately upon exit – which isn’t exactly a bad thing as long as one is mentally prepared.

Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars) 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:21:11 -0700 Rise of the Planet of the Apes * * * * http://e-ramblings.com/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes http://e-ramblings.com/rise-of-the-planet-of-the-apes Genre: Action Thriller

Director: Rupert Wyatt

Writers: Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver, suggested by the novel La Planete des Singes by Pierre Boulle

Cast: James Franco, Andy Serkis, Frieda Pinto, John Lithgow

Running Length: 106 minutes

Synopsis: Set in present day San Francisco, Rise of the Planet of the Apes deals with the aftermath of experiments in genetic engineering that leads to the creation of apes with super intelligence, beginning with Caesar (Andy Serkis), who is adopted by Will Rodman (James Franco), one of the lead scientists in the project. Will has a vested interest in the success of the project because his father (John Lithgow) is afflicted with Alzheimer’s, but Will doesn’t realize how he will eventually play a crucial role in the war between the humans and the apes.

Review: Perhaps this is a new formula for success in Hollywood – instead of tackling the remake of an old movie, creating a prequel to a familiar franchise seems to work extremely well. Cases in point: Batman Begins, Casino Royale and Star Trek. 20th Century Fox has managed to strike gold twice in the same movie season with this formula, first with the seminal X-Men: First Class, and now with Rise of the Planet of the Apes. To be honest, after the disappointing Tim Burton remake a decade back, my expectations of Rise of the Planet of the Apes were not high. Confounding my expectations, this film has turned out to be a late summer season surprise, and is now for me as one of the best films released this year so far.

Much of why Rise of the Planet of the Apes makes such a deep impression is because of the depth of emotion it plumbs. The modern day setting means this is the closest to reality the Apes franchise has been (not factoring in the Burton remake), and hence it’s far easier to identify with the events that unfold on screen. This is also the first time that the apes are not human actors in cheesy costumes and prosthetics, and the CGI is so lifelike there really are only a small number of scenes where the primates look artificial. No surprise that the visual effects are handled by Weta Digital, the company who were behind the effects of the Lord of the Rings franchise and more tellingly, the King Kong remake in 2005.

Most importantly, Andy Serkis seems to have gotten performance capture acting down to an art, and his portrayal of Caesar is so expressive and so believable that he becomes the most sympathetic and fully fleshed out character in the whole film, overshadowing the human actors (who all put in decent performances). Coupled with the fact that a good portion of the film is centred around Caesar and his growth and change, and this strong emotional connection with the central protagonist (and surprisingly, some of the other primate performers) is what pushes the film from being simply good to great. I don’t recall many other movies in recent years that have moved me to such an extent, much less one that is populated at times entirely only by CG characters.

Although there are few classic action set pieces in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, every minute of the film is compellingly building towards the denouement, and nothing feels superfluous. The final showdown on the Golden Gate Bridge is breathtakingly executed, guaranteed to leave audiences on the edge of their seats yet while still being emotionally powerful. Viewers familiar with the original films will find references here and there, but the film is self-contained and accessible to newcomers and veterans alike. Rise of the Planet of the Apes concludes with a setup that leaves the door open for future films, but if they can be as outstanding as this one, it will definitely be a series to look out for.

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

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler Thu, 28 Jul 2011 08:10:31 -0700 Captain America: The First Avenger * * 1/2 http://e-ramblings.com/captain-america-the-first-avenger-12 http://e-ramblings.com/captain-america-the-first-avenger-12 Genre: Action

Director: Joe Johnston

Writers: Christopher Markus and Stephen McFreely, based on the comic series by Joe Simon and Jack Kirby

Cast: Chris Evans, Hayley Atwell, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Stanley Tucci, Samuel L. Jackson

Running Length: 125 minutes

Synopsis: Captain America: The First Avenger focuses on the early days of the Marvel Universe where the scrawny but courageous Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) volunteers to participate in an experimental science program that  eventually turns him into a super soldier known to the world as “Captain America”. He joins forces with best friend Bucky Barnes (Sebastian Stan) and a bunch of gung ho soldiers in a war against the evil HYDRA organization, led by the villainous Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). He also finds some time in between to romance the beautiful Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), though not always to good effect.

Review: After what seems like an endless slew of prequels for The Avengers, we’re finally at the last one before the main event next year, and this time it’s featuring one of the oldest Marvel superheroes – Captain America. Although the film is a serviceable origins movie and fairly entertaining, the fact that most cinemagoers have seen more than a handful of similarly-themed films means that the bar has been set quite high, and the flaws of this film seem particularly pronounced.

Let’s start with the positives. Captain America makes very good use of CGI, and not just in the big action sequences. It’s truly magical to see Chris Evans shrunken down to a much scrawnier size, and this is done so seamlessly that one can’t help but marvel at the advances in technology that have allowed this to happen. It’s also refreshing to see a superhero movie set in the 1940s, and the period details make even mundane actions like operating machinery seem that much more interesting. It’s no surprise that director Joe Johnston has The Rocketeer in his canon of work, because the two films bear many visual similarities.

Captain America is also packed with a good number of comedic moments, and this is largely the reason why the film is rather entertaining. The bigger action set pieces are pretty well choreographed, but for a superhero film the sequences take up far less screen time than expected. Although Chris Evans doesn’t really impress with his acting skills (and the scrawny Evans definitely is a bigger scene stealer than after his transformation), most of the supporting characters manage to acquit themselves, excepting Hugo Weaving who is unfortunately a wasted opportunity in the film, playing a one-note, cookie-cutter villain that really doesn’t deserve as much screen time as he was given.

One of the biggest flaws of Captain America is its pacing. The film spends too much time in exposition and setup, and as a result the final showdown between Cap and Red Skull feels really rushed and very unsatisfying – Red Skull’s fate has got to be one of the hastiest and sloppiest I’ve seen, and the denouement has very little emotional impact. The two modern day scenes that bookend Captain America are also clearly shoehorned into the script purely as an explanation of the Cap’s presence in The Avengers next year, and there’s never a satisfactory or explanatory segue into present time.  

Taken on its own, Captain America: The First Avenger feels somewhat hollow and incomplete, but seen as part of the lead-up to The Avengers, the film’s purpose seems clearer. Much as how Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II managed to round out the deficiencies of the first film, here’s hoping that The Avengers next year will be able to give audiences the big, satisfying payoff, as has been suggested along the franchise’s various films in the last few years. 

P.S. As with all the Avenger prequels, there is a coda at the end of the credits, but this time it’s a full-on sneak preview trailer for next year’s The Avengers, which seem to be promising enough.

Rating: * * 1/2 (out of four stars) 

Permalink | Leave a comment  »

]]> http://files.posterous.com/user_profile_pics/369878/Avatar.jpg http://posterous.com/users/3sOcSrYozVLP e-rambler e-rambler