Tag Archives: action

Edge of Tomorrow

edge_of_tomorrow_ver5_xlg

Genre: Sci-Fi, Action

Director: Doug Liman

Writers: Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth, John-Henry Butterworth, based on the novel “All You Need is Kill” by Hiroshi Sakurazaka

Cast: Tom Cruise, Emily Blunt, Bill Paxton, Brandon Gleeson, Noah Taylor

Running Length: 113 minutes

Synopsis: Edge of Tomorrow unfolds in a near future in which an alien race has hit Earth in an unrelenting assault, unbeatable by any military unit in the world. Major William Cage (Tom Cruise) is an officer who has never seen a day of combat when he is unceremoniously dropped into what amounts to a suicide mission. Killed within minutes, Cage now finds himself inexplicably thrown into a time loop forcing him to live out the same brutal combat over and over, fighting and dying again… and again. But with each battle, Cage becomes able to engage the adversaries with increasing skill, alongside Special Forces warrior Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt). As Cage and Rita take the fight to the aliens, each repeated encounter gets them one step closer to defeating the enemy.

Review: Groundhog Day has withstood the test of time and almost two decades later, still remains one of my favourite movies. In my books, it’s no mean feat to be compared favourably to Groundhog Day, but that’s exactly what Edge of Tomorrow manages to achieve – it is essentially a sci-fi version of Groundhog Day, and although it’s a big budget action movie, the film is much better thought-out than the usual mindless summer action flick, and it’s the smaller moments that manages to impress more so than the effects-laden action setpieces.

While Edge of Tomorrow falters a little at the start, complete with the used-to-death news montage to set up the story, once the time loop starts kicking in the film becomes far more interesting. Doug Liman has obviously worked hard with the screenwriters to try and figure out exactly how much repetition audiences can take, and much like Groundhog Day, chooses to show only parts of each cycle to prevent audience fatigue. It generally works well, but there are moments where the plot does get lost. What really helps the movie is that it is not shy to inject humour into the proceedings, and indeed that are a handful of sequences that are laugh-out-loud funny, which makes Edge of Tomorrow a better-rounded movie than a typical sci-fi action film.

Tom Cruise is excellent as William Cage, mainly because he manages to dial his usual all-in-all-the-time intensity down for the role, and it certainly is refreshing to see him play a coward that dies and gets beaten down literally hundreds of times in the movie. Of course he does eventually blossom into the usual hero character he plays, but present here is at least a progression that is hardly seen in other movies headlined by Cruise. He is ably partnered by Emily Blunt, who is impossibly athletic and graceful in the film, and puts in a mesmerizing and believable performance. The only misstep is the attempt to develop a romantic liaison between the two actors, as while they share a good onscreen chemistry, the romance subplot feels undercooked and unconvincing.

And then there’s the film’s denouement, which is surely going to split audiences down the middle. Edge of Tomorrow ends with the usual CGI-laden, guns blazing finale, which really carries very little emotional heft as both the aliens and the cannon fodder are one-dimensional, and audience members are unlikely to feel vested. To avoid being spoilerly, all I can say is that the final scene is sure to throw audiences for a loop, which isn’t necessarily a good thing. Fortunately, the movie has built up enough goodwill along the way that even the head-scratching conclusion is unlikely to derail the positive sentiments. Will Edge of Tomorrow stand up to repeat viewings like Groundhog Day? I don’t think so, but at least the first time round will be fun and rather entertaining.

Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Maleficent

Image

Genre: Action, Adventure

Director: Robert Stromberg

Writer: Linda Woolverton, based on Disney’s “Sleeping Beauty” and Charles Perrault’s “La Belle au bois dormant”

Cast: Angelina Jolie, Elle Fanning, Sharlto Copley, Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton, Juno Temple, Sam Riley

Running Length: 97 minutes

Synopsis: Maleficent explores the untold story of Disney’s most iconic villain from the classic “Sleeping Beauty” and the elements of her betrayal that ultimately turn her pure heart to stone. Driven by revenge and a fierce desire to protect the moors over which she presides, Maleficent (Angelina Jolie) cruelly places an irrevocable curse upon the human king’s newborn infant Aurora. As the child grows, Aurora (Elle Fanning) is caught in the middle of the seething conflict between the forest kingdom she has grown to love and the human kingdom that holds her legacy. Maleficent realizes that Aurora may hold the key to peace in the land and is forced to take drastic actions that will change both worlds forever.

Review: You may not know it from the official trailers, but Maleficent is both a kid- and family-friendly film. To say more would be slightly spoilerly, but this mismatch presents the biggest stumbling block for the film – that many viewers are going to watch the movie with the wrong expectations in tow. Given that the film is trying to flesh out the backstory of one of Disney’s most famous villains, and integrating that into one of the most famous “old-school” Disney animations, first-time director Robert Stromberg has a lot to achieve in a very short amount of time. It’s not entirely successful, and in a way it almost feels as though the original Sleeping Beauty had put some shackles around the way the movie unfolds, but almost all is forgiven solely by the extremely astute casting choice of Angelina Jolie as Maleficent.

Producer Joe Roth seems enamoured with films that retell a familiar story, including Alice in Wonderland, Snow White and the Huntsman, and Oz the Great and Powerful, and Maleficent is a film cast in a similar mould. For Maleficent, unfortunately, it really has been done before (and arguably better) in Wicked, which means that there are very few surprises to be had here. In fact, the attempt to run a parallel story to the original Sleeping Beauty doesn’t nearly work as well as it should, because the film is simply too short to allow for more depth in the storytelling. The final third of the movie feels extremely rushed, as though the fact that this is a family movie means the running length can’t exceed 90 or so minutes (two words for Disney to consider: “Harry” and “Potter”). It’s almost hilarious how little time Aurora spends caught in her magical slumber, that it feels more like a quick nap than anything else. It’s things like these that make the links to Sleeping Beauty feels perfunctory, especially because there appeared to be a need to recreate certain key scenes from the alternate perspective.

However, there’s no denying that Richard Stromberg had realized a wonderful world in Maleficent – the art direction and set design (despite there being only two main sets in the film) is flawless, and the visual effects are extremely well done. This isn’t surprising, given Stromberg’s CV before taking the helm, which includes two Oscar wins for Art Direction for Avatar and Alice in Wonderland. However, once again this is a film that doesn’t require viewing in 3D – there were scenes that should have looked better without 3D glasses on, and the already dark scenes look even murkier in the third dimension.

There is no doubt that Angelina Jolie totally owns the Maleficent character. She’s terrific in the role, all regal and menacing, her already distinct features made even more angular by Rick Baker’s incredible makeup. Her screen presence overshadows everyone else in the film, to the point that she is really the only character that matters or has any semblance of depth. This could be a good or bad thing depending on your perspective, but let’s get real – everyone is here for Angelina Jolie/Maleficent, and her performance does not disappoint.

Rating: * * * (out of four stars)

Standard

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Image

Genre: Action

Director: Bryan Singer

Writer: Simon Kinberg, story by Jane Goldman, Simon Kinberg and Matthew Vaughn

Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart

Running Length: 131 mins

Synopsis: The ultimate X-Men ensemble fights a war for the survival of the species across two time periods in X-Men: Days of Future Past. The beloved characters from the original X-Men film trilogy join forces with their younger selves from the past, X-Men: First Class, in order to change a major historical event and fight in an epic battle that could save our future.

Review: To say that X-Men: Days of Future Past is one of the better installments in the X-Men franchise seems to be faint praise, given that there have been a number of clunkers in the seven films thus far. So let’s rephrase: this is the second best movie in the franchise so far (the first by far still being X-Men: First Class), and since it features actors from the original trilogy, also manages to more or less flush out the bad taste that remained after the rather terrible X-Men: The Last Stand.

Days of Future Past is not a perfect movie – it has way too many characters doing nothing, the dense plot requires a working knowledge of the X-Men universe to make head and tail of. However, it belongs to a rare breed of superhero movies where the action takes a back seat to plot development. While the action is fine in Days of Future Past (the most notable being an imaginative, series-best scene where Quicksilver uses his powers to get the mutants out of a tight bind), it is when some of the key actors get a chance to flesh out their characters where the movie shines.

There’s an impressively long list of mutants featured in Days of Future Past, but almost all of them are nothing more than wallpaper – this sadly even includes seasoned thespians Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as the future age Professor X and Magneto. Hugh Jackman is given top billing, but even his Wolverine is reduced to doing nothing much except be the plot device that marries the two timelines in the film. As for the minor mutants, the only ones who are really given any significant screen time are Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) and Quicksilver, the rest seemingly present just to perform a technical demonstration of their powers – the most egregious example being Fan Bing Bing’s Blink, who didn’t even seem to get a single line of dialogue.

Thankfully, Singer does give the key actors in X-Men: First Class their time in the sun, and the film benefits immeasurably because of this. The trio of James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence do most of the heavy lifting in the film, and it is not a stretch to say that the movie is successful largely due to their presence. Michael Fassbender once again reigns supreme, and his portrayal as Erik/Magneto is easily the strongest (and dare I say, most magnetic) amongst the trio. There’s a tragic quality about Erik Lensherr which Fassbender is able to bring out, both within and without his costume – a pretty rare occurrence for superhero movies.

Having watched the film in 2D, it’s hard to say if 3D would add to the viewing experience, but it does not look like to be the case. While the quality of the CG in any action blockbuster worth its salt (or its $200 million production budget in this case) is a given, there are spots in the film where the visual effects do seem a little sloppy, particularly the finale sequence, easily the weakest scene both visually and in the grander scheme of things.

Bryan Singer was the director who truly established the end-credits sequence in superhero movies, and it’s no surprise that there’s one such scene in Days of Future Past, an obvious teaser for the already announced X-Men: Apocalypse. Having reboot the franchise’s beginnings with X-Men: First Class, and now resetting the present X-Men universe with the time travel premise in Days of Future Past, the X-Men franchise is now at its strongest in its entire 14-year cinematic history. Hopefully Apocalypse will be able to continue the streak and not waste the build-up when it arrives in 2016.

Rating: * * * (out of four stars)

Standard

Godzilla

Image

Genre: Sci-Fi, Action

Director: Gareth Edwards

Writer: Max Borenstein, story by David Callaham

Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, CJ Adams, Ken Watanabe, Bryan Cranston, Elizabeth Olsen, Carson Bolde, Sally Hawkins, Juliette Binoche, David Straitham

Running Length: 123 mins

Synopsis: An epic rebirth to Toho’s iconic Godzilla, this spectacular adventure pits the world’s most famous monster against malevolent creatures who, bolstered by humanity’s scientific arrogance, threaten our very existence.

Review: It’s been 16 years since Hollywood has put Godzilla on the big screen, and little wonder since the 1998 version was quite a misstep in terms of establishing the (then-planned) franchise. I’m pleased to say that the 2014 (re)incarnation is a far, far better movie.  Although it hiccups in terms of human drama, Godzilla manages to deliver on most other aspects, especially on Godzilla himself, and is a very satisfying stompy movie indeed.

The film does take its time to get started, with Godzilla not making a formal appearance till about the halfway point. This is largely due to Gareth Edwards attempting to ramp up the human drama in the movie, though it is somewhat unsuccessful. Despite populating the cast with an amazing amount of talent, no one actually gets to do much apart from Bryan Cranston. Ken Watanabe and Sally Hawkins are particularly wasted, reduced to nothing more than reciting expository dialogue. It is a pretty shocking waste of thespian chops, and the film would probably have done better just by focusing more on the monsters from the get-go.

Where the film does succeed, however, is giving the audience the human’s-eye view of the action once it gets going. Gareth Edwards regularly films the proceedings from the perspective of the humans, and this really helps to put the audience smack in the heart of the action. One particularly impressive scene is seen through Ford’s (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) face mask as he skydives past Godzilla – it is an impossibly intimate look at the big monsters and delivers dramatic flair in spades.

Kudos to the effects team as well for crafting Godzilla and monsters that look stunningly realistic (well, as realistic as we think giant monsters would look like anyway), and all the computer-generated mayhem and destruction are presented most convincingly. An excellent score by Alexander Desplat perfect augments the fantastic sound effects and mixing in the movie – it’s highly recommended that you watch Godzilla in a theatre with great acoustics, and rest assured that you can feel Godzilla’s roar in your bones if you do so. What’s not so recommended is the 3D in the movie – once again, the post-production 3D does nothing to enhance the viewing experience, and it would be better to stick to a big screen that’s devoid of the third dimension.

Although this isn’t identical to the Toho Godzilla movies that some of us grew up with, Gareth Edwards has done a very commendable job in maintaining the spirit of the old movies. Sure, the science is a bit junky still, and the central humans just aren’t interesting enough, but Godzilla himself is most impressively brought to life, in a mould that’s similar to the Japanese films that he once starred in. In fact, the movie could have been significantly improved if more focus was brought onto the monsters instead of the humans, but this is so much better than Hollywood’s previous attempt that it would seem nitpicky to ask for more. This may be Edwards’ first big budget directorial effort, but he has lived up to expectations (and more), and this film more than makes up for the 1998 travesty that almost killed Godzilla for good.

Rating: * * * (out of four stars)

Standard

The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Image

Genre: Action

Director: Marc Webb

Writers: Alex Kurtzman, Roberto Orci, Jeff Pinkner, James Vanderbilt, based on the comic book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane Dehaan, Sally Field, Campbell Scott, Embeth Davidz, Colm Feore, Paul Giamatti

Running Length: 141 mins

Synopsis: For Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield), life is busy between taking out the bad guys as Spider-Man and spending time with the person he loves, Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), and high school graduation can’t come quickly enough. Peter hasn’t forgotten about the promise he made to Gwen’s father to protect her by staying away – but that’s a promise he just can’t keep. Things will change for Peter when a new villain, Electro (Jamie Foxx), emerges, an old friend, Harry Osborn (Dane DeHaan), returns, and Peter uncovers new clues about his past.

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 may be far from being the perfect superhero movie, but as far as Spider-Man movies go, the film has now taken over the mantle from Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man 2 as the best Spider-Man movie so far. It may not boast the best action sequences, or the tightest of editing (at almost two and a half hours, the film runs way too long), but it is certainly the film that is closest in spirit to the comic book version of Spidey. One of the criticisms of the first installment in the Spider-Man reboot was that it took too long to get the establishing story out of the way, but it does pays off partially in this sequel.

Although it’s clear that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 cost a pretty penny to make – the 3D is surprisingly decent throughout, and the CGI, particularly in the final showdown with Electro, is as good as it gets these days – what really makes the film stand out is in the “smaller” sequences. There’s no doubt that being a real-life couple makes the chemistry between Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone easily the best and most tangible in any superhero movie to date (far better than the Tobey Maguire-Kirsten Dunst pairing in the original Spider-Man trilogy, at the very least), but even other characters also get a chance to shine. Sally Field particularly impresses (again) as Aunt May, and her performance is the strongest one in the film despite a rather limited screen time. Unsurprisingly, the most emotionally engaging scenes in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 are when everyone is out of their costumes. 

For a Summer action blockbuster, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is surprisingly light on action, and although the limited action sequences are all well choreographed and make good use of technology, I suspect that many moviegoers will still have preferred something that isn’t so skewed in favour of exposition and storyline, especially since the first installment already spent a good amount of time doing the same. There’s no doubt that the film is a little durdly, particularly in the middle, but the eventual payoff does make it somewhat worth the time.

The single largest misstep in The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is its entirely forgettable villains. Electro is the worst offender, and though he is supposed to be the central villain, he is such a broad caricature – bringing to mind Jim Carrey’s Riddler in Batman & Robin – that it’s impossible to take the character seriously. Even an accomplished actor like Jamie Foxx can’t do much to rescue a character that is this poorly written and developed. While Harry Osborn/Green Goblin is significantly better written, with Dan DeHaan doing a capable enough job, his introduction and eventual transformation does seem rather rushed, and it’s surprising to see such a major villain in the comic book series getting such short shrift in the film. And the less that’s said about the Rhino and Norman Osborn the better – suffice to say that it’s a colossal waste of talent for both Paul Giamatti and Chris Cooper.

With The Amazing Spider-Man 2, Marc Webb and his creative team have managed to create a Spider-Man that’s closest to the comic book version, but despite the positives of the film, it very nearly comes apart at the seams due to its flaws. Whether one would enjoy the film depends very much on how much weight is placed on the film having an emotional centre, which in my opinion is one of the things that the film manages to get very right. With The Amazing Spider-Man 3 slated for a 2016 release, hopefully the franchise will finally hit its stride in its third outing, and deliver the best Spider-Man movie yet.  

Rating: * * * (out of four stars)

Standard

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

Image

Genre: Action

Directors: Anthony & Joe Russo

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

Cast: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Robert Redford, Anthony Mackie, Sebastian Stan

Running Length: 135 minutes

Synopsis: After the cataclysmic events in New York with The Avengers, Marvel’s Captain America: The Winter Soldier finds Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), aka Captain America, living quietly in Washington, D.C. and trying to adjust to the modern world. But when a S.H.I.E.L.D. colleague comes under attack, Steve becomes embroiled in a web of intrigue that threatens to put the world at risk. Joining forces with the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Captain America struggles to expose the ever-widening conspiracy while fighting off professional assassins sent to silence him at every turn. When the full scope of the villainous plot is revealed, Captain America and the Black Widow enlist the help of a new ally, the Falcon (Anthony Mackie). However, they soon find themselves up against an unexpected and formidable enemy – the Winter Soldier.

Review: Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a game changer in terms of the Marvel movie universe – the events that unfold in this film has far reaching repercussions, and it is definitely interesting that the studio chose to do it in a single movie. This is particularly so given the track record of dragging out plot developments across multiple films prior to the “proper” Avengers movie in 2012. With this change, Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) is finally given more screen time and actually feels like a character in the movie proper, instead of a plot delivery device, usually showing up in end credit sequences.

Apart from Nick Fury, Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow is also given a much larger role, and can essentially be considered Captain America’s partner throughout the whole movie. This is an astute choice because Captain America can be considered to be quite a vanilla superhero, and almost everything that he does here is a retread of the first movie. It doesn’t help that despite his physicality, Chris Evans really lacks the charisma and presence of other action superheroes.

With Black Widow in the mix, things get a little more interesting, since she is willing to bend the rules to her favour, and Scarlett Johansson as an actress is many levels more charismatic than Chris Evans is. Suffice to say that she successfully manages to steal the limelight from Evans in the film consistently, which actually winds up being not a bad thing. A small plot thread involves Black Widow thinking of all the women that Captain America can hook up with, and interestingly enough, she herself is never presented as an option despite some hints of a possible romantic dalliance – perhaps this would be further expounded upon in future Marvel movies.

Action setpieces are a must in any self-respecting superhero movie, and these do not disappoint in The Winter Soldier. The directors made an interesting choice to move away from CGI for some of these action sequences, and the audience is treated to a number of “smaller” scenes – a car chase, ground pursuit and close quarters combat, which are really far more entertaining than the CGI-laden finale. One big caveat – directors Anthony and Joe Russo does not seem to be comfortable with helming a big superhero action movie, and chooses to go the route of employing jerky camera movements and frantic quick cuts to suggest visceral action. It does not work well, and is even more pronounced when viewed in 3D, particularly the two sequences that bookend the movie.

The identity of the Winter Soldier will be no mystery to anyone familiar with the Marvel comic universe, but the script does make it a sufficiently interesting reveal for moviegoers who are not that acquainted with the backstory of Captain America. Returning scribes Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely wisely chooses to devote a good amount of screen time delving into the more emotional aspects of the Captain (the Winter Soldier reveal and a short sequence with Peggy Carter, for example), which gives the character more dimensionality and makes up partially for Evans’ lack of charisma. And to be fair, Evans does a decent job in these scenes, underscoring the fact that Captain America belongs very much to the “more human” category of superheroes.

Captain America, like Iron Man, seems to be planned as a trilogy, though it’s hard to imagine a third movie being in the same mold as the previous two without it feeling like a tired retread. However, Captain America is one of the longest running comic book franchises, so hopefully the final film would find some way to improve further on its predecessors. The Winter Soldier is perfectly fine as the opening salvo in a year chock-full of superhero movies, and it will certainly be interesting to see how the events initiated in this film will cascade out to the next few Marvel films, particularly Avengers: Age of Ultron next year.

P.S. There are two end credit codas, one mid credits which gives a sneak peek into Age of Ultron, and one at the very end which hopefully hints at further developments for the Captain America franchise. 

Rating: * * * (out of four stars)

Standard

Need for Speed

Image

Genre: Action

Director: Scott Waugh

Writers: George Gatins & John Gatins, based on the videogame series created by Electronic Arts

Cast: Aaron Paul, Dominic Cooper, Imogen Poots, Scott Mescudi, Rami Malek, Ramon Rodriguez, Harrison Gilbertson, Dakota Johnson, Stevie Ray Dallimore, Michael Keaton

Running Length: 130 minutes

Synopsis: Based on the racing video game franchise, Need For Speed follows Tobey Marshall (Aaron Paul), a blue-collar mechanic, who is set on revenge when the wealthy ex-NASCAR driver Dino Brewster (Dominic Cooper) frames him for a crime he didn’t commit. Tobey knows the only chance to take down Dino is to defeat him in the high-stakes race known as De Leon. However to get there in time, Tobey will have to run a high-octane, action-packed gauntlet that includes dodging pursuing cops coast-to-coast as well as contending with a dangerous bounty Dino has put out on his car.

Review: It’s hard to imagine turning the Need for Speed videogame franchise into a movie – the games (numbering 20 or so installments) are very light on plot and focus mainly on the driving experience. Equally surprising is the choice of cast members – instead of the usual 6-foot hunk with a chiseled body and face, and a model-esque love interest with legs that stretch out to eternity, we have the small-ish Aaron Paul and the quirky-cute Imogen Poots as the central characters. And what’s truly intriguing is that it works pretty well – although the film runs way too long, the great acting chops and charisma from Paul and Poots is what makes the film much better than one would expect. That and the visceral stuntwork with the lust-worthy supercars, of course.

It is natural that Need for Speed will be compared to the Fast & Furious franchise, but the thing about this movie that it has no pretensions of trying to be a huge blockbuster. Its release date alone is indicative of this, and yet somehow this actually aids the movie since expectations while watching it are lowered. Instead of being fast and frenetic the entire time, Scott Waugh takes it slow and allows room for a bit more storytelling and acting. And this is where the film allows both Paul and Poots to really shine – Aaron Paul is a very, very good actor (anyone who has seen the Breaking Bad series already knows this for a fact) and he brings a gravitas to his role here that is seldom seen in an action film. Imogen Poots is the highlight of the movie, really, and her Julia is the most interesting female character that I have seen in an action film for a very long time. Sure, she still has to play the hapless damsel at times, but there is enough meat on the bone for her role apart from that.

Unfortunately Need for Speed goes against its own title and sacrifices a little too much speed for exposition, resulting in a film running over two hours long, definitely exceeding the attention span that most motorheads will bring to the cinema. Although there are three major action set pieces in the film, the final De Leon showdown actually feels like an anticlimax, especially when there’s really no mistaking how it would end. What’s truly great about the driving sequences in Need for Speed, however, is how real it feels, without the obvious digital manipulation that happens in so many movies in the same genre (Fast & Furious 6 was a particularly egregious offender). This is a film that has no CGI and should be respected for that fact alone. This is probably due to Waugh’s background as a stuntman, and the film ends up feeling more organic and comes across as being more believable. It’s not a stretch to say that this is one of the better video game adaptations I’ve seen, although that may or may not be a compliment since so many movies in the same genre have been essentially crap. Need for Speed is a reasonably entertaining diversion, which is about as good as it gets.

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Tom Yum Goong 2

Genre: Action

Director: Prachya Pinkaew

Writer: Prachya Pinkaew

Cast: Tony Jaa, Petchai Wongkamlao, Jeeja Yanin, Marrese Crump, RZA

Running Length: 105 minutes

Synopsis: Kham (Tony Jaa) has once again been separated from his pet elephant, and Kham must fight anyone in his way to be reunited with his pet.

Review:  There’s no denying that Tony Jaa is a bonafide action star, successfully breaking into Hollywood and slated to appear next in Fast and Furious 7. However, he is best known for his kick-assery in the Ong Bak and Tom Yum Goong movies, and in Tom Yum Goong 2 he continues to show why he’s probably one of the best martial artists/actors of our time. Unfortunately, that does not make Tom Yum Goong 2 (henceforth known as TYG2) a good movie, and the film comes off as being barely (just barely) passable, plagued with issues like bad acting, dodgy CGI, questionable plot lines and a complete disregard for the laws of physics (and common sense). The only saving grace are the fight sequences, and even some of these come off being poorly edited and choreographed. Although the viewing I was at wasn’t a 3D screening, it was clear even in 2D that the third dimension is just a cheesy gimmick. Even with tempered expectations, TYG2 just can’t warrant a recommendation, except for the most hardcore fans of Tony Jaa or Jeeja Yanin.

One wouldn’t expect the plot of a show like TYG2 to be complicated, but there are so many plot threads running amok that it just all becomes a rather convoluted mess. Characters are simply forgotten along the way, and Jeeja’s character and storyline in particular feel like throwaways. Even the action sequences are somewhat questionable in their execution, none more so than a protracted scene involving motorcycles and some truly heinous green screen work. The film also seems to be subject to particularly overzealous but substandard sound work – there were scenes where it was painfully clear too much celery was being crunched in post production. Don’t even get me started on the scene where a fight is conducted on a electrified railway track, where Tony Jaa and Marrese Gump both sound like they are wielding Star Wars lightsabers. If it is intended humor that the director was going for, then he has definitely raised the bar. 

Unlike the original TYG which really showcased the martial arts prowess of the actors, there seems to be an over reliance on CG in TYG2, with quite a number of scenes shot too close and edited way too rapidly. This wouldn’t be so glaring if the CG was done well, but it is painfully obvious when green screen work is done, which is jarring and does not serve the suspension of disbelief well at all. There are still some rather hard-hitting and well choreographed fight scenes despite this, so it’s not a total wash. Unfortunately, instead of showcasing near-impossible martial arts moves like before, TYG2 showcases impossible moves, for example a truly ridiculous scene that involves what seems like fire retardant shoes and flame kicks. It’s a waste really, that Tony Jaa’s body of work in Thai would end (for now at least) on such a lackluster note, but hopefully his Hollywood foray would prove to be more fruitful.

Rating: * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Thor: The Dark World

Genre: Action

Director: Alan Taylor

Writers: Screenplay by Christopher L. Yost, Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely, story by Don Payne and Robert Rodat, based on the comic book series by Stan Lee, Larry Lieber and Jack Kirby

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

Running Length: 120 minutes

Synopsis: Thor: The Dark World continues the big-screen adventures of Thor, the Mighty Avenger (Chris Hemsworth), as he battles to save Earth and all the Nine Realms from a shadowy enemy that predates the universe itself.  In the aftermath of Thor and Marvel’s The Avengers, Thor fights to restore order across the cosmos…but an ancient race led by the vengeful Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) returns to plunge the universe back into darkness.  Faced with an enemy that even Odin and Asgard cannot withstand, Thor must embark on his most perilous and personal journey yet, one that will reunite him with Jane Foster (Natalie Portman) and force him to sacrifice everything to save us all.

Review: It now seems par for the course for superhero movie sequels to outdo their predecessors, but this is particularly surprising for Thor: The Dark World, because the first Thor had already set the bar pretty high. Throw in the fact that the villain (Malekith the Dark Elf) is so bland and spectacularly unmemorable in this outing, it almost seems like an impossible task. However, director Alan Taylor (probably best known for his work on Game of Thrones) manages to deftly balance action, drama and humour, and coupled with a brilliant performance by Tom Hiddleston, manages to one-up the original Thor. While Marvel fans are still going to be getting the most out of the movie, Thor: The Dark World is a definite crowd-pleaser and is destined to do well at the box office.

Although Chris Hemsworth has loads of charisma and the physicality to pull off playing Thor (for those interested, there is a gratuitous “money shot” of Hemsworth’s muscled torso, much like every other movie he’s been in), he is outclassed by Tom Hiddleston’s Loki, who not only gets the best lines in the movie but gets the delivery spot-on. Hemsworth and Hiddleston share a great onscreen chemistry, and the best scenes in Thor: The Dark World are when Loki and Thor team up against their common enemy. The only downside is that the pairing only takes place about an hour into the film, when more Thor-Loki interaction would probably have further improved the movie.

One of the few nits to pick with Thor: The Dark World would be that of the romantic angle. While it’s almost necessary to include a love interest to tone down the testosterone (and perhaps the bro-mance), Natalie Portman sadly proves once again to be the weakest link in the movie, as despite an expanded role, her performance is rather vapid and at odds with her earlier body of work. There exists very little chemistry between Jane Foster and Thor, and though the movie wisely chooses not to focus too much on the romantic subplot, what’s been left in still does not convince.

Although Thor: The Dark World has a somewhat iffy storyline, it is near flawless on a technical level. The CGI looks stunning throughout, and the set design and art direction (especially for Asgard) are incredible. Perhaps the Dark Knight trilogy has led some viewers to expect a dark, gritty look for superhero movies, but Thor happily takes it to the other end of the spectrum, featuring bright, beautiful, ornate sets and costumes for much of the movie (3D is not necessary to enjoy this movie – it did not add much to the proceedings at all). Action sequences are off-the-wall in their choreography, and although the amount of junk science is nothing short of spectacular, Thor: The Dark World is so frenetically paced that one would barely have the chance to think about the way they trashed physics and logic in this film (the denouement is particularly guilty of this).

With an unending number of Marvel superhero movies coming and having gone our way (2014 alone will bring to the table Captain America: The Winter Soldier, The Amazing Spiderman 2, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Guardians of the Galaxy), it’s getting increasingly difficult to feel enthused about each movie. Thor: The Dark World manages to impress, more so than Iron Man 3, though one does feel some form of superhero fatigue setting in. Remember to stay for the end credits codas, the first one alluding to an upcoming Marvel Studios movie in 2014, and the second one, at the very end of the credits crawl, is at least good for a laugh but largely inconsequential.

Rating: * * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard

Escape Plan

Genre: Action

Director: Mikael Hafstrom

Writers: Miles Chapman and Arnell Jesko

Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jim Caviezel, Faran Tahir, Sam Neill, Amy Ryan

Running Length: 116 minutes

Synopsis: One of the world’s foremost authorities on structural security agrees to take on one last job: breaking out of an ultra-secret, high-tech facility called “The Tomb.” Deceived and wrongly imprisoned, Ray Breslin (Sylvester Stallone) must recruit fellow inmate Emil Rottmayer (Arnold Schwarzenegger) to help devise a daring, nearly impossible plan to escape from the most protected and fortified prison ever built.

Review: This is the first real lead pairing of 80s action stalwarts Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger, and while it’s not entirely a case of too little too late, Escape Plan will likely appeal more to moviegoers who are familiar with the duo’s bodies of work (pun unintended) in the 80s and early 90s. Despite featuring two lead actors that are over 65 years old and a ridiculous, hole-ridden storyline, Escape Plan still manages to entertain, although some serious editing should have been made to the almost 2-hour running time.

There’s almost no real plot and character development in Escape Plan, so essentially all one needs to know is that both Stallone and Schwarzenegger’s characters have been wrongly imprisoned and need to stage a prison break. The only twist in this tale is that Breslin is an expert in breaking out of prisons, and even this “escape-proof” prison will fall to his machinations. Yet, it takes almost a full half hour to lay the groundwork for Breslin, before the audience is introduced to Rottmayer, and the film rambles aimlessly along for almost another half hour before things truly kick into gear. For throwaway entertainment like this, that’s one hour too long to wait. 

Escape Plan does not have a strong storyline at all, and its contrivances can almost be too ridiculous to overlook. However, the lead actors are very likeable, and display enough chemistry to make this pseudo buddy movie work. The only thing that gets in the way is that both Stallone and Schwarzenegger are obviously geriatric (I say this with a lot of love and respect for both actors), and it seems that director Mikael Hafstrom is actively trying to let the audience think that they are still in their 40s. It doesn’t work, and frankly, tests the audience’s ability to suspend disbelief to near-breaking point. Implausibility aside, this is definitely a movie that will be found in the “Guilty Pleasures” category, and is entertaining enough (just barely) to make it worth the price of admission.

Rating: * * ½ (out of four stars)

Standard