Tag Archives: 3.5 stars

Behind the Candelabra

Genre: Drama

Director: Steven Soderberg

Writer: Richard LaGravenese, based on Behind the Candelabra: My Life with Liberace by Scott Thorson and Alex Thorleifson

Cast: Michael Douglas, Matt Damon, Dan Aykroyd, Rob Lowe, Scott Bakula

Running Length: 118 minutes

Synopsis: Before Elvis, before Elton John, Madonna and Lady Gaga, there was Liberace: virtuoso pianist, outrageous entertainer and flamboyant star of stage and television. A name synonymous with showmanship, extravagance and candelabras, he was a world-renowned performer with a flair that endeared him to his audiences and created a loyal fan base spanning his 40-year career. Liberace (Michael Douglas) lived lavishly and embraced a lifestyle of excess both on and off stage. In summer 1977, handsome young stranger Scott Thorson (Matt Damon) walked into his dressing room and, despite their age difference and seemingly different worlds, the two embarked on a secretive five-year love affair. Behind the Candelabra takes a behind-the-scenes look at their tempestuous relationship – from their first meeting backstage at the Las Vegas Hilton to their bitter and public break-up.

Review: It is interesting to see Soderberg take on Liberace as his final movie project (at least for now), albeit a TV movie made for HBO (here in Singapore we will get to experience the movie on the big screen), since he isn’t necessarily the first director one would think of when it comes to someone as showy as Liberace. However, Behind the Candelabra is very much a success on many counts – it is a briskly paced biopic with two very strong lead performances, and though poignant at times, remains entertaining from start to end.

It’s easy to turn any movie about Liberace into a parody, since it would not take much effort (if at all) to focus on the camp factor of his life and loves. Yet, despite the amount of sequins, rhinestones and other manner of bling and kitsch in the movie, the one thing that it isn’t is campy. It’s a triumph that despite the larger-than-life character that was Liberace, Soderberg’s rendition of Liberace’s life with Scott Thorson is measured and even-handed. Soderberg treats the material with a great amount of respect (and to a certain extent, sympathy) and never plays any scene for laughs, much as there are mirthful moments in the film.

Michael Douglas may seem to be an odd choice to be Liberace on paper, but his performance is certainly the strongest in the movie. He nails the character completely from the word go, and essentially disappears into the role. For two hours, the firmly heterosexual Michael Douglas IS the showy, flashy and very homosexual Liberace. Matt Damon is almost able to stand toe to toe with Michael Douglas in his turn as Scott, and it’s commendable that for someone who’s almost double the actual age of Scott can bring out the naïveté and guile that underscores the character. Damon isn’t as convincing, however, in the later parts of the movie when he has to portray Scott as an increasingly desperate drug addict. One other surprise is Rob Lowe, who is truly memorable as a plastic surgeon who has obviously gone too far in the remaking of his own face, although it can be argued that his makeup plays an equally important part as his thespian skills.

Being made for TV, the experience of watching it on the big screen does make the smaller, more intimate moments in the film feel a little out of place. However, there are also moments that transcend the TV movie confines, almost all of them involving Michael Douglas. Though this is a movie made from viewpoint of Scott Thorson, this is very much a showcase of Michael Douglas at his most impressive. He is also augmented by fine directing from Soderberg, and strong production values all around, from the music to the art direction and set designs.

The movie ends off with Liberace uttering the phrase “Too much of a good thing… is wonderful!” and that essentially is what we have here: a wonderful movie that isn’t too much, despite it being about Liberace, and that really is a very good thing.   

Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Pacific Rim * * * 1/2

Genre: Sci-Fi, Action

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Writers: Travis Beacham & Guillermo del Toro

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Rinko Kikuchi, Idris Elba, Charlie Day, Max Martini, Ron Perlman

Running Length: 131 minutes

Synopsis: When legions of monstrous creatures, known as Kaiju, started rising from the sea, a war began that would take millions of lives and consume humanity’s resources for years on end. To combat the giant Kaiju, a special type of weapon was devised: massive robots, called Jaegers, which are controlled simultaneously by two pilots whose minds are locked in a neural bridge. But even the Jaegers are proving nearly defenseless in the face of the relentless Kaiju.

On the verge of defeat, the forces defending mankind have no choice but to turn to two unlikely heroes – a washed up former pilot (Charlie Hunnam) and an untested trainee (Rinko Kikuchi) – who are teamed to drive a legendary but seemingly obsolete Jaeger from the past. Together, they stand as mankind’s last hope against the mounting apocalypse.

Review: Pacific Rim is what the Transformers film should have been – it’s a behemoth of an effects movie, loud and brash and all guns blazing from the word go, but doesn’t eschew a proper storyline in exchange for CG effects and action sequences. Guillermo Del Toro has crafted a very impressive film here – minus some bad science and logic, this is about as entertaining as the monsters versus giant robots sub genre gets.

It’s clear that the film is targeted mainly at teenaged boys (just like Transformers), and so the proceedings remain very chaste throughout – there’s very little true violence and bloodshed (barring kaiju blood, but it’s about as gruesome as an ad for diapers, blue liquid and all), and virtually zero sexual chemistry between the two leads. The focus is really on the mecha and the monsters, which fortunately are rendered very well. Action sequences are cleanly shot, with none of the confusion that plagued all the Transformers movies, and the film is pretty evenly paced with little downtime.

Pacific Rim is also a rare action film which successfully balances the OTT action sequences with exposition, which allows audiences to feel more vested in the proceedings. There’s also immense attention paid to the finer details of the universe that Pacific Rim is set in – for example, Jaegers each have their own unique look and feel, and it’s readily apparent that a lot of painstaking work was put into making the Shatterdome and other environments look just right. Unlike Transformers and the ilk, there’s no lazy filmmaking to be found in Pacific Rim. This is also a film in which paying for a third dimension doesn’t feel like a pure money grab – the action sequences felt enhanced and even more visceral when viewed in (IMAX) 3D.

That’s not to say that the film is without issues – apart from the junky science (apparent even to a layperson like me), one of the biggest problems the movie has is with the choice of its main lead. Although Charlie Hunnam bears the looks and build of an all-American hero, his thespian skills leave much to be desired, and some of his line delivery is so poor it’s almost comical. To be fair, the rest of the cast is perfectly serviceable (Rinko Kikuchi and Mana Ashida, the child actress playing the younger version of Mako, are the most memorable), and the one scene where Raleigh and Mako face off in physical combat is flirtatious fun.   

Guillermo del Toro has not attempted a project of this size prior, but he has now shown that tackling a big summer blockbuster is not out of the question for him. Pacific Rim borders on being a guilty pleasure – it is hugely enjoyable with the standard trappings of an action film, and yet delves just enough beyond the superficial that it doesn’t become featureless, mindless action tedium. The final title card in the end credits pay tribute to Ray Harryhausen (master of stop motion animation films like the original Clash of the Titans) and Ishiro Honda (the director of Godzilla – the original film, not the pale Hollywood remake), and the film indeed is a shining example of how Harryhausen and Honda’s films would look like if made with the trappings of 21st Century technology and modern sensibilities.

Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Star Trek: Into Darkness * * * 1/2

Genre: Sci-Fi, Action

Director: J.J. Abrams

Writers: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg, John Cho

Running Length: 133 minutes

Synopsis: When the crew of the Enterprise is called back home, they find an unstoppable force of terror from within their own organization has detonated the fleet and everything it stands for, leaving their world in a state of crisis. With a personal score to settle, Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) leads a manhunt to a war-zone world to capture a one man weapon of mass destruction.

Review: With the series reboot in 2009, Star Trek is no longer a movie franchise that solely appeals to a niche “Trekkie” audience. J. J. Abrams had made Star Trek cool and mainstream, and many people will walk into Star Trek: Into Darkness, four years later, with raised expectations (myself included). The good news is that Into Darkness manages to outdo its predecessor(s), raising the bar yet again for the Star Trek franchise. Into Darkness has something for fans of many genres – sci-fi, action, even drama, and although it has once again taken liberties with the “established” Star Trek canon, there’s very little to complain about otherwise.

A caveat: now that it’s the second movie post reboot, audiences will need to have watched the first movie in order to make sense of the interpersonal relationships aboard the starship Enterprise, as there is very little exposition in the film to cast more light on the Enterprise crew list. That does free up the narrative of Into Darkness, and instead of cast introductions, the film kicks off straight in the deep of a really fun, slightly implausible action sequence that sets the tone for the rest of the movie.

The original cast are back for the sequel, and as a whole the performances are more than adequate, with even the usually subpar Chris Pine having a few memorable moments. However, all performances pale to Benedict Cumberbatch’s tour de force turn as the central villain of the movie, and a mid-movie reveal will leave Trekkies gasping for breath (either in horror or in appreciation of the way Abrams has paid homage to the Trek films of yore). The intensity of Cumberbatch’s performance is astounding, and manages to outdo Eric Bana’s banal villain (pun unintended) in the first film many times over.

Into Darkness is yet another post-processed 3D film, which means that there’s really very little reason to view it in 3D. Save for a couple of scenes which displays reasonable three dimensionality, there’s no significant value-add shelling out the extra money for a 3D screening.

The screenplay has almost everything in it save the kitchen sink, deftly switching from action to comedy to character drama, and managing to pull off most of it with aplomb. The only flaw is in the film’s final reel, which feels like an unnecessary addition after what was ostensibly a climactic finale. The film thus ends on a whisper instead of a bang, but even this irregularity doesn’t detract too much from the enjoyment of the movie as a whole. And that’s essentially the reason why Into Darkness is a successful film – it manages to consistently entertain, and yet boasts a depth that is not commonly seen in summer blockbusters.

Unfortunately, with directorial duties for Star Wars looming, it is unlikely that J. J. Abrams will be behind the camera for the next Star Trek installment. However, he has laid such excellent groundwork for the franchise to continue, that it would take a large amount of ineptitude for the next director to screw it up.

Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Skyfall * * * 1/2

Genre: Action Thriller

Director: Sam Mendes

Writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade

Cast: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes, Naomie Harris, Berenice Marlohe, Albert Finney

Running Length: 143 minutes

Synopsis: In Skyfall, Bond’s (Daniel Craig) loyalty to M (Judi Dench) is tested as her past comes back to haunt her. As MI6 comes under attack, 007 must track down and destroy the threat, no matter how personal the cost.

Review: This was the Bond film that almost never came to be – given MGM’s financial woes, production was suspended on Skyfall for a year, but thankfully things turned around and the film managed to be released in time for Bond’s 50th anniversary. This fact alone is due cause for celebration, because after the somewhat disappointing Quantum of Solace, Skyfall is a return to form for the franchise, and immediately ranks amongst the best Bond films (though still falling slightly short of the seminal Casino Royale). Perhaps it’s the sensibilities of a director like Sam Mendes, or that Daniel Craig, Judi Dench and Javier Bardem is possibly the best combination of Bond, M and Bond villain in the franchise’s 50-year history, but everything just falls into place beautifully, resulting in not just a great Bond film, but an excellent action thriller as a whole.

The film opens with a huge bang, with an excellent chase sequence that sets the tone of the film action-wise. Seguing into a classic Bond credit sequence with a theme song (sung by Adele) that is definitely the best in recent years, Skyfall makes no pretense about its intentions – this is meant to be a throwback to the best years of the Bond franchise, and it does so with great aplomb.
 
Great action sequences are almost a given nowadays, and Skyfall more than delivers in this aspect. What Sam Mendes brings is an added dimension to Skyfall, an emotional engagement that is rare in the franchise. Daniel Craig masterfully peels back the layers of Bond cool, and displays a scarred vulnerability that makes Bond more three-dimensional and accessible than ever before. This iteration of Bond can be hurt physically and emotionally, and it’s not hard to see the parallel between Craig’s James Bond and Christopher Bale’s Batman. Javier Bardem plays the fey yet menacing antagonist Silva, and although Bardem puts forth a most impressive performance, Craig never feels like he’s being outdone or overshadowed.

However, the most memorable performance in the film has to go to what must be the oldest “Bond girl” ever – Judi Dench’s M is a pivotal character in the movie and her role in Skyfall outweighs her previous six outings combined. From the grittier moments to the most introspective portions of the film, Dame Judi Dench doesn’t ever falter, and much like Daniel Craig, she has become the most iconic M in the franchise’s history. Bond films are not known for thespian quality, but since the Casino Royale reboot this has been turned on its head.

Skyfall boasts incredible visuals, and is a very handsome film from start to end – kudos to Roger Deakins, who may just get a nod at the Academy Awards for the fine work he’s put in here. In particular, the skyscraper scene set in Shanghai really ups the game, presenting an action sequence in a breathtakingly new light (both literally and figuratively). Thomas Newman, Mendes’ longtime collaborator, merges old and new together in his scoring of the film, and that familiar guitar riff makes an undeniable impression multiple times in the show (as compared to the two previous films scored by David Arnold, which pretty much eschewed the classic theme from a majority of the proceedings).

It’s hard to innovate in a film franchise which has been around for half a century, but that’s exactly what Mendes and crew have managed to achieve. It’s an interesting dichotomy – on the one hand James Bond has been further updated for modern times, yet it’s the callback to the classic Bond that makes the movie stand out.  The only more tangible flaw that Skyfall has is the need for a tighter edit, yet even this doesn’t really detract significantly from the cinematic spectacle that the rest of the film is.
 
Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn * * * 1/2

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)

Standard

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part II * * * 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

Running Length: 130 minutes

Synopsis: Continuing right where Part I left off, Part II begins with Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes)locating the Elder Wand, one of the three items that constitute the Deathly Hallows. Having already destroyed three Horcruxes, Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson) continue the search to make Voldemort mortal again, including a return to and a last stand at Hogwarts. It is soon apparent that Harry Potter may have to make the ultimate sacrifice if he wants to prevent the Dark Lord from reigning supreme over the wizarding world.

Review: Part II of The Deathly Hallows is everything the first part wasn’t – concise, precise and engaging throughout, the shortest film in the entire Harry Potter canon happens to be one of its best as well. Because much of the exposition and meandering was done in Part I, Part II begins in the thick of the action and doesn’t let up till the very end, and because this truly is THE end, the sense of urgency is palpable and much appreciated – no dragging of heels in this film unlike every single Potter film before it.

Given the leeway of two movies, it’s little wonder that resident scribe Steve Kloves’ screenplay is nothing short of being slavishly faithful to the source material. It’s a little more understandable and tolerable in the final film since any omissions would have legions of fans up in arms, and at least all the important action unfolds in this installment so audiences aren’t left hanging. The film’s pacing is also vastly improved especially when the focus shifts back to Hogwarts.  

However, this is a caveat for viewers who are not familiar with the Harry Potter universe – prior knowledge is a necessity as almost nothing is explained in this film, and even audience members who are familiar with the films are advised to at least watch Part I again before venturing into the cinemas for Part II.

Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint have been immersed in their roles for a decade, but to be honest their performances have never been outstanding, especially because the movies have always roped in a large number of British acting greats to act beside them. In this final installment, the list of British actors is by far the longest (unfortunately, many esteemed actors like Emma Thompson and Jim Broadbent don’t speak more than a couple of lines each), which means the young actors have an even greater obstacle to overcome. However, having been through this for such a long time means that despite their deficiencies, the trio share excellent chemistry and many audience members are too vested in the characters to care about acting quality.

It’s also interesting to note how far the visual effects have come since the first film, and the visuals in Deathly Hallows Part II are about as good as it can get. Aiming for a much more monochromatic look and gritty feel than in the previous films, Deathly Hallows Part II shines most in battle sequences, especially in the finale sequence where no expense was obviously spared. Having only seen this in digital 2D, I am not able to judge if the 3D elements are retrofitted successfully onto the film – but somehow I think watching the film without a third dimension might actually serve it better.

This is likely to be the definitive last film of the Harry Potter franchise, and it’s amazing to look back at the past decade and see how far the franchise has come. It’s an excellent send off and ends the franchise on the best possible note, to be sure, but there will be plenty of fans wishing that more could follow, especially since Deathly Hallows Part II has managed to deliver everything it promised. Already the most successful film franchise of all time, there’s no doubt that Harry Potter is here to stay, and despite this curtain closer would definitely continue to thrive in other iterations and formats.

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

Standard

Thor * * * 1/2

Genre: Action

Director: Kenneth Branagh

Writers: Screenplay by Ashely Edward Miller, Zack Stentz and Don Payne, story by J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich, based on the comic book series by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby

Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Anthony Hopkins, Stellan Skarsgard

Running Length: 114 minutes

Synopsis: Thor (Chris Hemsworth), a powerful but arrogant warrior from Asgard, is banished to Earth by his father Odin (Anthony Hopkins) as punishment for reigniting a reckless war. But after a dangerous villain from his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth in order to finish him off, the hammer-wielding Thor will learn what it takes to be a true hero in order to save mankind.

Review: I had my reservations when Thor was announced – how well will his godlike powers be translated to the big screen? Will it be another Clash of the Titans debacle? Stuck in development hell for a number of years, the project finally took off with Kenneth Branagh at the helm. Branagh isn’t exactly the first director one would think of for a superhero movie, since he cut his directorial teeth on a number of Shakespearean adaptations. Amazingly, something that could have gone terribly wrong managed to do everything right, and the superhero summer season kicks off with a bang and with the bar set very high. 

Although this is an origins story, Branagh manages to balances exposition very nicely with action, and despite running at almost two hours, almost nothing feels drawn out or superfluous. The CGI is top notch, in both the landscapes as well as the action sequences, but there’s no real need to watch this in 3D as the film rarely makes use of the third dimension. There’s also a fair bit of humour deftly sprinkled amidst the more serious and action-packed moments, and no other superhero film in recent years have managed this many laugh-out-loud moments. It’s almost as though the fact that Thor isn’t as sacrosanct a superhero character (unlike Spiderman or Superman, for example), that the production feels more at ease with poking occasional fun at the franchise. 

What’s also interesting is that unlike most superhero movies, there’s actually some rather good acting to be found in Thor. Actors like Anthony Hopkins and Tom Hiddleston put in performances that are far more involving that what is par for this genre, and almost everyone feels like they are vested in their characters – even the more minor ones. Chris Hemsworth must also be given credit for turning what is potentially a flat character into a star-making turn. Apart from his sheer physicality (and mad props for Hemsworth for being able to carry off the Thor costume without looking ridiculous), Hemsworth succeeds in the dramatic, comedic and romantic departments as well, an almost unheard of occurrence in thie genre. The only one who seems to be performing below her usual standard is Natalie Portman, who is reduced to little more than a pretty face, and does nothing much except giggle at Thor’s enormous pectorals. 

It’s rare to find a film, much less a superhero movie, which manages to work on multiple levels. Thor has something for everyone, from fans of the comic series to general audiences who are just there for the spectacle. Easily one of the most enjoyable superhero movies since the original Iron Man. 

P.S. Remember to stay through the end credits for a longer than usual teaser sequence that reveals yet another major plot device in the Marvel universe.

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

The Town * * * 1/2

Genre: Drama / Thriller

Director: Ben Affleck

Writers: Peter Craig and Ben Affleck & Aaron Stockard, based on the novel Prince of Thieves by Chuck Hogan

Cast: Ben Affleck, Rebecca Hall, Jeremy Renner, Jon Hamm, Blake Lively

Running Length: 125 minutes

Synopsis: The film is set in Charlestown, Boston which apparently is the “bank robbery capital of North America”, and said “trade” is passed down from generation to generation like a family business. Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck) is from one such family, and his father Stephen (Chris Cooper) is currently serving a life sentence in prison for murders associated with a robbery that went wrong. Doug himself runs a crew, which includes his best friends – James Coughlin (Jeremy Renner), Gloansy Magloan (Slaine) and Desmond Elden (Owen Burke). Doug is the brains of the operation whilst Coughlin is the unpredictable, violent one. In their latest heist, Coughlin takes the bank manager, Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall) hostage, but is subsequently released, having never seen the robbers’ faces. However, when Doug tracks her down to ascertain that she can’t offer any helpful information to the police, he finds himself becoming attracted to her. In the mean time, the FBI is hot on the trail of the robbers, led by special agent Adam Frawley (Jon Hamm). Frawley doesn’t have enough evidence to land a conviction yet, but he is determined to put a stop to the robbers’ crime spree, preferably by catching them red handed.

Review: The trailers for The Town may have been somewhat misleading – they give the impression that this is heist film that is filled with action sequences, but in reality The Town is more a character drama with some well-placed and effectively executed action set pieces. This is a handsome, atmospheric movie filled to the brim with great acting from the ensemble cast, and a storyline that will keep most audiences engrossed throughout its two-hour running time.

Ben Affleck deserves major kudos, his sophomore directorial effort being almost as well done as his first (Gone Baby Gone). As a director, he has managed to capture the nuances of every major character in the film, and it’s truly a pleasure to observe action set pieces filmed with a steady hand, without the usual (nowadays) quick cuts and rapid edits that has plagued many an action film in recent years.

In front of the camera, Affleck also manages to acquit himself very well. His measured performance, whilst not the strongest in the film (that credit would have to be given to Jeremy Renner’s ferocious performance), makes Doug MacRay a character that audiences will have no trouble vesting their interest in. What’s probably even more surprising is that the romance between Doug and Claire is very believable, when this aspect of a heist movie is usually its weakest link.

What is the film’s weak link, unfortunately, is the climactic heist, which really is a little too preposterous for its own good. Also, for a film that seems intent to keep the volume dial down, the overreliance on firepower in this last sequence feels just a little out of place. There’s no denying, however, that this is a solidly entertaining dramatic thriller, and it proves that Ben Affleck isn’t a flash in the pan when it comes to his directorial skills.

Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Iron Man 2 * * * 1/2

Genre: Action

Director:  Jon Favreau

Writer: Justin Theroux

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

Running Length: 124 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rating:  * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

How to Train Your Dragon * * * 1/2

Genre: Fantasy / Animation

Directors:  Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois

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

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

Running Length: 98 minutes

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

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

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

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

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

Rating:  * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard