Tag Archives: 2.5 stars

Water for Elephants * * 1/2

Genre: Drama

Director: Francis Lawrence

Writer: Richard LaGravenese, based on the novel of the same name by Sara Gruen

Cast: Robert Pattinson, Reese Witherspoon, Christoph Waltz

Running Length: 120 minutes

Synopsis: During the Great Depression, Jacob (Robert Pattinson), a penniless 23-year-old veterinary school student, parlays his expertise with animals into a job with a second-rate traveling circus. He falls in love with Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), one of the show's star performers, but their romance is complicated by Marlena's husband August (Christoph Waltz), the charismatic but unbalanced ringmaster and owner of the circus.

Review: There’s no doubt that one of the biggest draws of Water for Elephants would be Robert Pattinson, especially for Twilight fans who are craving for the next Edward fix, but unfortunately he happens to be the weakest link in the movie. Although Francis Lawrence manages to showcase quite well the nuts and bolts of running a circus during the Depression era, there is precious little chemistry between Robert Pattinson and Reese Witherspoon, and the romantic angle never really works due to this.

It’s not that Pattinson is acting badly, but the role of Jacob requires him to just stand around looking handsome and broody most of the time. Reese Witherspoon tries her darndest to up the energy level with a rather spirited performance but the two simply are unable to generate any sparks. It’s not surprising, then, that Christoph Waltz steals every scene with his nuanced, mesmerising turn as the psychologically disturbed ringmaster. It’s a great performance, but is slightly undone near the end when he transforms into a scenery-chewing, comic book villain.

Fortunately, Water for Elephants does have its fair share of high points, such that the fizzled romance doesn’t kill the movie entirely. The production design and art direction are very impressive, and really manages to recreate some of the old school Hollywood charm that is lacking in movies these days. There’s a great sequence which shows the Big Top being set up and other glimpses that seem authentic to how a circus would be run in the 30s.

Water for Elephants is also beautiful to look at – not only are the leads pleasing on the eyes, the cinematography is sumptuous with some really impressive set pieces. However, as all these components play second fiddle to the central romance, the end result is a movie that falls short of expectations. One may leave the cinema wondering if the film would actually be improved if the focus is shifted instead to August and the nuts and bolts of running a Depression-era circus.

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

Standard

Love and Other Impossible Pursuits * * 1/2

Genre: Drama

Director: Don Roos

Writer: Don Roos, based on the novel of the same name by Ayelet Waldman

Cast: Natalie Portman, Scott Cohen, Charlie Tahan, Lisa Kudrow

Running Length: 102 minutes

Synopsis: Emilia (Natalie Portman) is a Harvard law school graduate and a newlywed, having just married Jack (Scott Cohen), a high-powered New York lawyer, who was her boss – and married – when she began working at his law firm. Unfortunately, her life takes an unexpected turn when Jack and Emilia lose their newborn daughter. Emilia struggles through her grief to connect with her new stepson William (Charlie Tahan), but is finding it hard to connect with this precocious child. Emilia is also trying to overcome a long-standing rift in her relationship with her father caused by his infidelity. But perhaps the most difficult obstacle of all for Emilia is trying to cope with the constant interferences of her husband’s angry, jealous ex-wife, Carolyn (Lisa Kudrow).

Review: Although filmed before Natalie Portman’s Oscar-winning performance in Black Swan, Love and Other Impossible Pursuits (thankfully the film isn’t released under the pedestrian American release title of The Other Woman) seemed to have languished for some time since its inception in 2009, and its release now seems timed to cash in on Portman’s increased bankability since her Academy Award success. It’s a pretty certain bet that most audiences would be watching this film based solely on the fact that it features Natalie Portman, her performance here is good but not spectacular, which pretty much describes the rest of the film as well.

One of the greater weaknesses of Love and Other Impossible Pursuits is its structure – although there are many dramatic incidents that occur, the timeline feels unrealistic and many of the plot threads are eventually given short shrift. Too much reliance is placed on Portman delivering one tearful, emotionally charged scene after another, and because these incidents aren’t given enough breathing room, the entire film gets bogged down with overt melodrama.

It also doesn’t help that apart from Portman’s more faceted performance, the rest of the characters are nothing more than caricatures. Carolyn is portrayed as a controlling, paranoid ex-wife who always seems on the verge of hysterics, and this is done to such an extent that when she finally displays a more humane side (in which Lisa Kudrow shines in what’s probably the best scene in the entire film), it does not feel believable at all. This is true even of Charlie Tahan, whose character is pivotal to the film, and yet is obviously delivering lines that no real 8 year old kid would be uttering – no matter how smart or precocious.

That said, the scenes where Portman and Tahan interact manage to work quite well, although Portman may have just been a little too good at being cold and distant for audiences to ever truly empathize with her situation. The film also manages to give a slightly more measured look at the changed dynamics of a family from the home wrecker’s point of view, which isn’t something that is seen in most other movies dealing with similar subject matter.  

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

Standard

Morning Glory * * 1/2

Genre: Comedy

Director: Roger Michell  

Writer: Aline Brosh McKenna

Cast: Rachel McAdams, Harrison Ford, Diane Keaton, Patrick Wilson, Jeff Goldblum

Running Length: 102 minutes

Synopsis: When hard-working TV producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is fired from a local news program, her career begins to look as bleak as her hapless love life. Stumbling into a job at "Daybreak", the last-place national morning news show, Becky decides to revitalize the show by bringing on legendary TV anchor Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford). Unfortunately, Pomeroy refuses to cover morning show staples like celebrity gossip, weather, fashion and crafts – let alone work with his new co-host, Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), a former beauty queen and longtime morning show personality who is more than happy covering morning "news." As Mike and Colleen clash, first behind the scenes and then on the air, Becky's blossoming love affair with fellow producer, Adam Bennett (Patrick Wilson) begins to unravel – and soon Becky is struggling to save her relationship, her reputation, her job and ultimately, the show itself.

Review: Morning Glory is a wildly inconsistent movie – at its best the film is an entertaining and at-times laugh-out-loud peek into the world of talkshow TV, but at its worst it’s plodding and smacks of desperation. Although the screenplay comes from Aline Brosh McKenna, which brought us the superior The Devil Wears Prada, this is not anywhere close to similarly-themed movies like Network and Broadcast News. In fact, it can be said that Morning Glory is just a little too moderate and restrained for its own good, and if the kid gloves came off the film would probably have been much more memorable. 

The best thing about Morning Glory is the tremendous effort Rachel McAdams puts into her role as Becky Fuller. Since both Harrison Ford and Diane Keaton are basically coasting along, the weight of carrying the movie falls squarely on McAdams’ shoulders, and it’s on her thespian strength alone that Morning Glory is elevated above mediocrity. Harrison Ford has good chemistry with McAdams, and provides the much needed sparks to perk up the proceedings. Diane Keaton is unfortunately reduced to nothing more than a prop, which seems such a waste as her portrayal of Colleen Peck had so much potential and could have been a foil to both Becky and Pomeroy. 

However, all the acting in the world can’t save Morning Glory from its rather uninspired plot, with tired sit-com clichés that are really only sporadically funny. It’s only when Becky is forced to pull out all the stops and plumb the depths in the programming format for Daybreak does the comedic ante go up. The film does try to make a point about the death of “real” journalism versus entertaining the masses, but this is apparently too serious for the rest of the film and eventually fizzles into nothing. The romantic subplot is completely unconvincing, and Patrick Wilson has the thankless role of playing the bland romantic interest of Becky. 

This issue with the romantic subplot is reflective of a systemic problem that affects the film – so much of the script feels so contrived that it’s almost impossible to draw parallels with anything happening in real life. Although movies are essentially escapist fantasies, the wide disconnect with reality means that it’s hard to care about the movie, its characters and their eventual outcomes. Morning Glory does remain entertaining enough to not make it a total waste of time, and Rachel McAdams alone is worth the price of entry, but if the film was aiming for glory, then it has fallen far short. 

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)
Standard

Just Go With It * * 1/2

Genre: Romantic Comedy
 
Director: Dennis Dugan

Writers: Timothy Dowling & Allan Loeb, based on the screenplay for Cactus Flower by I.A.L Diamond

Cast: Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston, Brooklyn Decker, Nick Swardson, Bailee Madison, Griffin Gluck

Running Length: 114 minutes

Synopsis: Danny (Adam Sandler) is a successful plastic surgeon who has had his heart broken before, and thus never commits to any relationship by pretending to be a married man. However, when he begins to seriously romance a much younger schoolteacher, Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), the lie backfires on him. In order to cover up the lie, Danny seeks the help of his loyal assistant Katherine (Jennifer Aniston) to pretend to be his soon to be ex-wife. The lies begets more lies, and soon even Katherine’s two children become involved. It all culminates in a weekend vacation in Hawaii which will end up changing everyone’s lives.

 Review: Just Go With It has an extremely apt title – in order to enjoy this movie, the audience has to just go with the plot and completely suspend their disbelief at the many contrivances and overall weakness of the narrative structure. Once this is done, however, the movie is actually somewhat entertaining, although entirely predictable despite the many attempted (not entirely successfully) twist and turns. Although there are a few good performances to be had in the movie, the true stars of the show are the lead actors’ bodies – it’s simply amazing how fit and toned everyone looks, and I’m not just referring to Swimsuit Illustrated model Brooklyn Decker, who’s here obviously more for her body than thespian talent.

This is an Adam Sandler movie through and through, and is director Dennis Dugan’s sixth collaboration with Sandler, so it’s not surprising that the film treads on familiar ground. Consisting largely of lowbrow but accessible humour that’s occasionally shocking, only the harshest and jaded critics would not find something to laugh about in the movie, even if it feels rather old hat. However, if you’re not a fan of Adam Sandler’s brand of comedy, this is not going to be the movie that changes your mind.

Much as this falls into the romantic comedy genre, the romance portion is actually quite minimal barring a small number of scenes. Whilst both Sandler and Aniston are passable in their lead roles for both aspects, it’s the supporting cast that keeps the cogs of the movie turning. The standout performance would have to be that of Nick Swardson, who plays Danny’s demented cousin and then eventually poses as a German-accented sheep seller called Dolph Lungdren (don’t ask). Swardson effortlessly steals every scene that he appears in and turns out to be the highlight of the movie. Also impressive are the two children, especially Bailee Madison, who throws in a completely OTT Cockney accent into the mix, which manages to amuse far better than I thought it would.

And then there’s the extended cameo from one of the most recognizable faces in the industry (since all the early promotional material does not reference her presence in the film, I shall keep her identity a secret here) – while she seems rather ill at ease with the material, she does showcase an amazing body, particularly in a Hawaiian dance-off against Jennifer Aniston. She’s not alone in this PG-13 “body porn”, however – both Aniston and Sandler (more the former than the latter for obvious reasons) get to show off what must have been months of hard work in a number of sequences.

Just Go With It does suffer from an overlong running time, clocking in at just under 2 hours when 90 minutes should have been more than sufficient. It simply takes too long to reach its clichéd denouement, and would have really benefitted from tighter editing. It may not be the obvious choice when it comes to a date movie on or around Valentine’s Day, but given the heavier Oscar fare that’s being released during this period, a surer choice for mindless entertainment.

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

Standard

The Tourist * * 1/2

Genre: Drama / Thriller

Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck 

Writers: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck and Christopher McQuarrie and Julian Fellowes, based on the motion picture Anthony Zimmer by Jerome Salle

Cast: Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, Paul Bettany, Timothy Dalton, Steven Berkoff, Rufus Sewell

Running Length: 103 minutes

Synopsis: Frank Tupelo (Johnny Depp), an American tourist in Europe who is en route to Venice, chances a meeting with Elise Ward (Angelina Jolie), a mysterious but ravishing British belle. Unbeknownst to Frank, Elise had engineered the meeting to throw her pursuers off the scent of her lover who had stolen a huge sum of money from mobsters. Frank is gradually led into a web of intrigue, romance and danger as his involvement with Elise deepens, and a deadly game of cat and mouse ensues.

Review: Released earlier this month in the US, The Tourist received an overwhelmingly negative critical reception, and didn’t fare so well at the box office either. This may point to The Tourist being a terrible movie, but I found that apart from the really farfetched plot, the film is sufficiently entertaining as a glossy, leave-your-brain-at-the-door thriller, starring two of the biggest movie stars in the world and set amidst breathtaking scenery. In other words, it’s an escapist film that’s perfect for the holiday season. No Oscar glory for sure, but perfectly serviceable as a two hour diversion.

Both Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp have proven in other films that they have plenty of thespian talent, but this is not on show in The Tourist. Angelina Jolie is paid to look, well, like Angelina Jolie, and she of course does this with supreme ease. Dressed in fancy couture and dripping with jewellery, her role in the movie almost seems to be making one red carpet appearance after another. Depp, on the other hand, dials down his sex appeal, giving a very by-the-numbers portrayal of a bumbling American tourist with a heart of gold. Depp does seem to be a bit bored by the role but not to the extent of looking like he’s dialing in his performance. While the two individual performances can’t be faulted much, the chemistry that should be present between the two leads is strangely lacking.

The Tourist is also quite a preposterous film, filled to the brim with movie clichés, and plot twists so telegraphed that you could spot them from miles away. Even the obligatory action sequences are crippled somewhat – there’s never a sense that any of the leads are in any form of true danger, and their characterization is so thin that it’s hard to feel vested for their survival.

Yet in spite of all this, The Tourist works. The gorgeous Venetian scenery is flawless, thanks to veteran cinematographer John Seale, and if one doesn’t question the plot too much, this really is quintessential cinematic fluff – not a hundred percent satisfactory, but good enough to not make it feel like a waste of time. Could it have been a better film? Sure – given the pedigree of almost everyone involved, it almost feels like a crime that the outcome is so decidedly average, but that doesn’t make The Tourist any worse when judged on its own merits.

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

Standard

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (Part I) * * 1/2

Genre: Fantasy

Director: David Yates

Writer: Steve Kloves, based on the novel of the same name by J. K. Rowling

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Ralph Fiennes, Helena Bonham-Carter, Alan Rickman, Bonnie Wright, Jason Isaacs, Tom Felton, Rhys Ifans, Imelda Staunton, Bill Nighy

Running Length: 147 minutes

Synopsis: Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) is growing stronger by the day, and now has control over both the Ministry of Magic and Hogwarts. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) drop out of school and attempt to seek out Voldemort’s horcruxes as destroying them will weaken the Dark Lord. Nowhere is safe for the trio, and they are constantly on the run. En route, they find out about the Deathly Hallows, and how it could be a key in the eventual showdown against Voldemort and the Death Eaters. 

Review: Call me a party pooper, but the only thought I had when the end credits rolled on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was “is that it?”. These three words will pretty much sum up my entire review of this half of the complete movie – I had believed it was a flawed decision (apart from the obvious monetary gains for Warner Brothers) to split the movie into two, and having now seen the first half I am sure of it. Coming off the decision to excise the climactic battle in the previous film (Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince), the expectation was that Deathly Hallows will be a spectacle in every sense of the word. However, since the book is further split into two films, there’s once again no payoff in this first installment. Deathly Hallows Part I feels like a continuation of the “filler movie” trend that plagued the previous film, and it’s a largely tedious, meandering two and a half hour movie that, while atmospheric, is plot-wise virtually dead in the water. 

Deathly Hallows is a narratively dense book, but much of the narrative does not translate well on screen, and with Steve Kloves’ screenplay being slavishly faithful (even more so than before, given the lack of timing constraints this time round), this becomes even more apparent. Much of the film involves Harry, Ron and Hermione on the run from one (admittedly scenic) location to the next, and sitting around in a tent looking morose. It already was a drag in the book but when depicted in the film the flaws become even more apparent. 

The Harry Potter movies have never really been kind to viewers who are not acquainted in the Potter-verse, but in these last few installments the divide has been even greater than before. Prior knowledge is a necessity if you want to make sense of the ins and outs of Deathly Hallows, and can be frustrating even for audiences who have faithfully watched every Potter movie to date. So much has been left out in the transition from page to screen, and yet the film can still run a butt-numbing 147 minutes, which lends strongly to the argument that the editing for the film needed to be far tighter than its current state. 

Whilst acting has never been stellar in the Harry Potter series, the thespian deficiencies of the main leads, in particular Daniel Radcliffe, have become more pronounced as the films trend towards a more adult sensibility, and kiddish wonder is no longer sufficient. The exception is Emma Watson, who manages to do a decent job, but there is a tendency for Yates to dump most of the heavy lifting on her, and in a way diverts attention away from the “true” lead of Radcliffe/Potter. And, like its predecessors, there’s the British Who’s Who of the movie industry, who unfortunately all seem to be present just to lend their name to the film – literally a waste of talent. 

Of course, for such a big budget movie it’s not all a bust. Yates has proven his proficiency in action sequences, and the higher-octane scenes in Deathly Hallows are as good as any action movie out there. CGI has also improved by leaps and bounds, and digital effects are near seamless in this film. Warner’s inability to convert the film into 3D in time for release may not have been a bad thing – whilst there are definitely scenes that would do well in 3D, so much of the film is static that the payoff wouldn’t have been that great. 

Perhaps when viewed together with Part II, Deathly Hallows would average out to be the finale that Potter fans have waited for. However, taken solely on its own merits, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I feels unsatisfying and unfocused, a filmic coitus interruptus that takes way too long to… not get anywhere. 

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

Standard

The A-Team * * 1/2

Genre: Action

Director: Joe Carnahan

Writers:  Joe Carnahan, Brian Blom & Skip Woods

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

Running Length: 117 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

Rating:  * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Clash of the Titans * * 1/2

Genre: Fantasy

Director:  Louis Leterrier

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

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

Running Length: 103 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating:  * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief * * 1/2

 Genre: Fantasy

Director:  Chris Columbus

Writer: Craig Titley, based on the novel Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief by Rick Riordan

Cast: Logan Lerman, Brandon T. Jackson, Alexandria Daddario, Catherine Keener

Running Length: 119 minutes

Synopsis: Percy Jackson (Logan Lerman) is shocked to discover, after an attack by his substitute Math teacher, that he is actually the demigod offspring of Poseidon (Kevin McKidd), and that his best friend Grover (Brandon T. Jackson) is actually a satyr sent to protect him. Zeus (Sean Bean) has had his mighty lightning bolt stolen, and he points the finger of blame at Percy. Ushered to the safety of demigod-training Camp Half-Blood, run by a centaur headmaster called Chiron (Pierce Brosnan), Percy needs to prove his innocence to Zeus by reclaiming the lightning bolt, aided by Grover and Annabeth (Alexandaria Daddario), daughter of Athena. Things get a little more complicated when Hades (Steve Coogan) abducts Percy’s mother (Catherine Keener), and the trio must make their way literally to hell and back, in the process stopping a war between the gods and the destruction of Earth (as always).

Review: Haven’t we all been here before? The answer is yes, of course we have – Percy Jackson and the Lightning Thief (strangely the local film title is truncated, dropping the bit about Olympians) feels very derivative, almost like a mutant child of the Harry Potter and Twilight series, even though it is based on its own bestselling novel series. We even have Chris Columbus helming the movie, the same auteur that brought the first two Harry Potter novels to the big screen. But is the film any good, or just another “me too!” movie trying to cash in on Potter-mania?

It’s a mixed bag – Percy Jackson is a rather entertaining movie, chock-full of action set pieces and eye-popping CG visuals, but it also suffers from logical flaws and is narratively very sparse, especially for an “origin movie”. Of course, this does help to move the film along at a good pace, but there’s very little content behind the action sequences and creates little emotional attachment to even Percy Jackson, which makes the viewing experience a very passive one. However, the film does manage to check all the boxes without committing any major mistakes, which means it actually fares a little better than the first Harry Potter film.

Much like the Harry Potter franchise, apart from the young leads the remainder of the cast is composed mainly of rather famous faces. However, most of these are walk on roles that aren’t all that memorable, except for Uma Thurman’s deliciously campy turn as the most fashion savvy Medusa I have ever seen.

Of all the fantasy films that have surfaced after Harry Potter, Percy Jackson is one of the few that shows enough promise to become a viable franchise – the Greek mythos is relatively interesting, and if the series takes off then hopefully the characters will gradually become more fleshed out over the next few movies. It seems like a sequel is already being green lit, so this is definitely the one to watch out for, especially after the conclusion of the Harry Potter franchise in 2011.

Rating: ** ½ (out of four stars)

 

Standard

Did You Hear About the Morgans? * * 1/2

Genre: Romantic Comedy

Director: Marc Lawrence

Writer: Marc Lawrence

Cast: Hugh Grant, Sarah Jessica Parker

Running Length:  103 minutes

Opens: 7 January 2010

Synopsis: Paul (Hugh Grant) and Meryl (Sarah Jessica Parker) Morgan are a high-powered New York couple who have become estranged due to Paul’s infidelity. Unfortunately, during an attempt at reconciliation, the couple witnesses a murder and is hastily put into the Witness Protection Program when the killer makes an attempt on their lives. The Morgans are shuffled to an obscure little town in Wyoming, under the care of sheriff Clay Wheeler (Sam Elliot) and his wife Emmma (Mary Steenburgen), where they must learn to adapt to the life in a small town, and perhaps in the process save their ailing relationship.

Review: Yes, we’ve all heard about the Morgans before, but probably not by that name. This is a bog-standard romantic comedy which some audiences might feel diminishes the movie, but then again how many romantic comedies actually differ from the norm? As always, the success of a romantic comedy depends on the chemistry of the leads, and the various situations they find themselves in.

Both Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker are essentially replaying roles they have done many, many times before – Hugh Grant with his self-deprecating “Britishness” and a whole slew of witty repartees, and Sarah Jessica Parker basically channeling Sex and the City’s iconic Carrie Bradshaw.

The fish-out-of-water plot has also been around the block more than a few times, usually bearing little (if any) surprises, but in Morgans the foreshadowing is particularly blatant. It gets to the point where one must actually make the conscious effort not to think ahead of the plot so as not to feel too bored by the proceedings.

However, the chemistry between Parker and Grant is decent, and the film does contain more than a few laugh-out-loud moments (and many other moments which are rather amusing – particularly the many one liners delivered by Hugh Grant). It may not feel fresh in any way, but fans of romantic comedies , Hugh Grant, or Sarah Jessica Parker would definitely still find the movie a rather enjoyable one.

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard