You are browsing the archive for film.

← Previous Entries

Mega Catch-up Movie Blitz (Part 1)

April 22, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

With around 25 movies waiting to be reviewed in my draft folder, I have decided that it’s no longer possible for me to just “catch up” to present day with detailed reviews for each film, especially not when I have plans to eventually put out a long overdue “Best of 2011”film ranking.

And so I have decided to go on a bit of a mega review blitz and get most the majority of the films out of the way with condensed reviews. I have reserved more detailed reviews for the newer and more high profile films I have something to say about, which I will hopefully chuck in there somewhere.

Anyway, here is the first batch:

The Way Back (2010)

My only 2010 film in this entire review blitz. I had been dying to see The Way Back for quite some time but never managed to get around to it until a couple of months ago.

It’s supposed to be inspired by real life events (also have to take that with a grain of salt), about a bunch of gulag prisoners who literally walk fromSiberiato Nepal/India. It features an all-star cast including Jim Sturgess, Ed Harris, Saoirse Ronan and Colin Farrell, and I believe the film was nominated for a 2011 Oscar for its make-up.

This is one of those visually stunning, well-acted, inspirational “true” stories that highlight the strength of the human spirit. Most of the film is about the kind of amazing feats (and crap) these people went through to survive, so from that perspective it was compelling to watch, but on the whole it didn’t quite have that “memorable epic” feel to it. At the end of the day, I enjoyed both the story and the technical achievements of the film but also came away slightly disappointed that it didn’t blow me away like I wanted it to. I’m glad I caught it on DVD.

3.5 stars out of 5!

The Three Musketeers (2D) (2011)

My knowledge of the Three Musketeers, sadly, comes almost exclusively from that 1998 Leo DiCaprio movie The Man with the Iron Mask, where the Musketeers are played by powerhouses Jeremy Irons, John Malkovich and Gerard Depardieu, with Gabriel Byrne as D’Artagnan.

This new version of Musketeers, on the other hand, is played by relative unknowns – Luke Stevenson, Ray Stevenson and Matthew Macfayden (Mr I love, I love, I love you from the 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice), with Percy Jackson himself (Logan Lerman) as a young D’Artagnan. The bigger stars, Orlando Bloom, Christoph Waltz and Milla Jovovich, on the other hand, are relegated to smaller roles.

I’m afraid this one was not at all very memorable for me. The lack of star power amongst the key roles might have had something to do with it, but for some reason despite all the swordplay, flying around and blowing things up I never felt…well, anything. It wasn’t awful and admittedly it was fun at times, but I found myself watching for the sake of it and not really caring what happened next.

Apparently a sequel was planned but I’m not sure I’d want to see it.

2.5 stars out of 5 

Paranormal Activity 3 (2011)

Having called the original overrated and the sequel one of the worst films of last year, I returned for more punishment with Paranormal Activity 3, which is actually a prequel about a young Katie and Kristi, the sisters who led the first two films in the franchise.

I suppose the makers deserve some kudos for coming up with the prequel idea so they can milk a little more money out of audiences – but still, the movie sucked dog scrotums. Perhaps it was scarier than the other two from a “boo” factor perspective and slightly less tedious in its build-up, but those are the only positive things I have to say about the film, which has really scraped the bottom of the barrel this time.

For one thing, I thought being set in 1988 meant that the “film everything” philosophy would have to be slightly reconsidered, but instead this family had some of the most advanced video camera technology ever used. I mean, seriously, what kind of family from the 80s would install cameras in just about every corner of the house, and what kind of futuristic cameras were they using to capture both crystal clear audio and high definition quality video for every second of the freaking day? This would have had to have been on tapes, by the way.

But I guess people who watch these films already know what to expect — a lot of time fillers, a few chills and several boo moments here and there, and a crazy ending where all hell breaks lose. Strictly speaking this might have been the most enjoyable movie of the three, but because the predictable formula has been reused so many times I can only give it…

1.5 stars out of 5

The Double (2011)

Richard Gere. Topher Grace. Straight to DVD (I think). That just about sums up The Double, a film about a Soviet operative called Cassius who is some super deadly killer seeking revenge against those who harmed his family. Gere and Grace are two CIA agents trying to track him down, but is there more to the story than meets the eye? And why is it called The Double?

Actually, this was not too bad for a straight-to-DVD flick (if that’s indeed what it is). But as a feature with two somewhat marketable stars – plus the likes of Martin Sheen, Odette Yustman, Stana Katic (from Castle) and Stephen Moyer (True Blood) – The Double fails to generate any real suspense or genuinely exciting action. It reminded me a little of those Carlos the Jackal films that were popular for a while, except those films were considered cool back then but not now.

The so-called “twists” were fairly obvious and didn’t add a whole lot to the drama. The execution wasn’t all bad but I think the script itself needed work. Not an atrocious effort overall but still a completely forgettable film. As you can see I am struggling to remember the details.

2.25 stars out of 5

Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Movie Review: Chronicle (2011)

April 21, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Doesn't this remind you of something?

I’m usually not a fan of pretend home-made video movies shot with hand-held cameras that are supposedly pieced together from “found footage”. I find the concept gimmicky, contrived and overdone, and most of all the constant shaking makes me nauseas.

Accordingly, while it might not say a whole lot, Chronicle may very well be the best film of this type that I have ever seen. Surprisingly and unexpectedly, I should add.

The premise of Chronicle is simple. Seattle teenager Andrew starts filming his life. His mother is dying of cancer and his dad is an alcoholic. Life is not much fun for him – until, of course, a discovery (which is never fully explained) which gives him, his cousin Matt and his friend Steve, totally freaking awesome superpowers.

I won’t go too much into what kind of powers they are but if you’ve ever played the game Infamous on the PS3 then you’ll have a bit of an idea. In fact, I’m pretty sure that game had at least a bit of an influence on this film.

Anyway, as Andrew and his friends learn to harness their powers and become more and more powerful, things inevitably start to get out of hand.

What I particularly liked about the film, apart from the fact that it’s damn entertaining, is that it’s not about superheroes. It’s not about making the world a better place or saving it. There’s none of that “with great power comes great responsibility” crap. These are immature teenage kids who suddenly find out they can rule the world – what do you think they would do? What do you think you would do? If anything, this is a film about the corruptive nature of inheriting too much power for one’s own good.

The film works because it doesn’t try to be “big”. For the most part, it operates within the confines of the teenagers’ lives and the issues accompanied by their daily problems, such as bullying, rebellion, girls, popularity, and so forth. This gives the story a more personal feel and makes it more relatable to viewers.

The short 83-minute running time is another plus, keeping the story progression tight and compact. There are very few “time fillers” in this movie, unlike say all the films in the Paranormal Activity franchise. An extra 20 minutes could have completely ruined this movie, so kudos to debut director Josh Trank for knowing when enough is enough.

The actors are largely unknowns (I had never seen any of them) but they give natural performances. Good enough to pass the “home video” test, anyway.

The real stars are the special effects, which are essentially seamless and added an additional layer of realism to the film. The stuff the kids do in the film is incredible, but never did I feel like I was watching digital effects while they were doing them.

As for the nausea, the film made a very clever choice to keep the camera as still as possible (for the most part) and used an ingenious method of justifying it. If you’ve seen it you’ll know what I mean.

Chronicle might not be “superb”, but it’s a rare film that manages to make the home video/found footage idea work, and for that I give it…

4 out of 5 stars!

Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Movie Review: Wrath of the Titans (2D) (2012)

April 18, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

 

For some reason, my memory of the predecessor, Clash of the Titans, was that it sucked. But when I checked my review of it I realised I actually said I quiet enjoyed it and gave it 3.5 stars. Beats me.

Either way, I am certain that the sequel, Wrath of the Titans, is better.

The second film begins 10 years after the first, where demigod and son of Zeus, Perseus (Sam Worthington, with long curly hair), is now a fisherman intent on raising his young son and wants nothing to do with the conflicts of the gods. But of course, he doesn’t get a chance because the gods are always angry with each other and he has to, once again, become the world’s saviour. It made little sense to me considering all the gods are kinda related to each other (or maybe that makes perfect sense) but I went along for the ride anyway.

Maybe it’s my bias towards Greek mythology, but I thought Wrath of the Titans was pretty awesome. It’s clichéd and predictable, but still — I couldn’t get enough of the mythological monsters and the spectacular battle scenes, of which there were plenty. There’s no Medusa or Kraken this time, but you do get to see Perseus take on a Chimera, Cyclops and a Minotaur, among others. From what I could recall of the first film I thought the fight scenes were better executed and more epic this time around.

The storyline, like the original, still doesn’t quite click, but I felt it had improved and was a lot more engaging. It was definitely less confusing and convoluted. I believe one of the main reasons is because the film is wrapped up in a manageable 99 minutes, whereas the original was far too long at 118.

I also firmly believe (without any proof whatsoever), that the makers of this second film (which was directed by Jonathan Liebesman, who last did Battle: Los Angeles) got a lot of ideas from the sensational God of War III on the PS3. Seriously – everything from the creature designs to the way the battles played out reminded me so much of the video game that it cannot be merely a coincidence.

Sam Worthington is still a little “meh” but he does a good enough job as the hero Perseus. Nothing wrong with him but a bunch of Hollywood actors could have pulled off the role just as well, if not better.

Other returners include Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes as Zeus and Hades, respectively, but Alexa Davalos is replaced by Rosamund Pike as Andromeda and Tamer Hassan is substituted by Edgar Ramirez as Ares. All are better than they were in the original.

Newcomers include Toby Kebbell as Agenor (whom for a very long time I thought was named “Vaginal”) and Bill Nighy as Hephaestus. Both are solid and provide upgrades over supporting characters from the first film.

So as you might have guessed, I thought Wrath of the Titans was better than Clash of the Titans. It had better action sequences, improved special effects, stronger characters and plot, and accomplished more in less time. Another reason could be because I watched the original in clunky 3D and the sequel in 2D, the way the films were supposed to be.

I know the film hasn’t gotten the best reviews but I hope they go ahead with the planned third instalment.

4 stars out of 5!

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Movie Review: We Need to Talk About Kevin (2011)

April 15, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

I saw this movie several weeks ago but I can’t seem to get it out of my head. It just had that kind of an effect on me.

Based on Lionel Shriver’s acclaimed 2003 novel (which I have not read), We Need to Talk About Kevin follows a grieving mother (Tilda Swinton) as she tries to come to terms with a horrific atrocity committed by her teenage son, Kevin (Ezra Miller).

I had some idea about the premise but I had no idea how or why things turned out the way they did, which still enabled the film to be very effective as the story is interspersed with various chronological flashbacks, from Kevin’s conception until “present day”. We see Swinton’s character, Eva, at the start of it all, a young, carefree woman full of hopes and desires, and we see the way she is now, barely a shell of a person — and these flashbacks slowly peel away the layers until the two versions of her merge into one.

It’s not often that a film makes me feel physically compelled to keep watching or makes me feel emotionally drained by the end of it , but We Need to Talk About Kevin manages to do both. It’s an old cliche, but the film truly is a parent’s worst nightmare. As a new parent myself, watching Eva struggle to bond with Kevin — who might as well be called Damien — is gut wrenching and terrifying. In fact, although the movie would be traditionally categorised as a drama, it wouldn’t be far-fetched to call it a horror.

This is a film that raises a lot of questions about the role of a parent in bringing up a child, as well as the nature vs nurture debate. Was Kevin born evil or did she make him that way despite her best efforts? What can you do when a child simply refuses to listen and is intent on making your life hell? And what can you do when your partner has no idea what is going on?

With all due respect to Meryl Streep’s Oscar win for her portrayal of The Iron Lady (which I intend to review shortly), Tilda Swinton should have claimed the statuette for the performance of her career. She was simply heartbreaking as Eva, and I could feel her anguish, pain and despair as though her emotions were my own. Her ability to convey Eva’s conflicting feelings towards Kevin was simply incredible and I have a hard time coming up with another actress who could have taken the character to the same level.

Ezra Miller also did very well as the chilling titular character (though perhaps a little overdone at times), as did John C Miller in a surprisingly good performance as the oblivious husband Franklin, but this was without a doubt Swinton’s movie. It’s one of those rare films that captivated me from start to finish and had me sitting in silence through the credits, shattered by what I had just seen.

I don’t have much more to say about We Need to Talk About Kevin except that I highly recommend it. For me, it was undoubtedly one of the best movies of 2011, and when all is said and done, probably the year’s most memorable.

5 stars out of 5

Tags: , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Classic Movie Review: Battle Royale (2000)

April 10, 2012 in Best Of, Movie Reviews, Reviews

I understand I have it backwards. I watched The Hunger Games, which I thoroughly enjoyed, then decided to check out its Japanese predecessor, which many say Suzanne Collins’ novel takes from quite liberally.

I must admit, for the longest time I thought Battle Royale, the movie, was based on the manga (of which I had read chunks) as opposed to the novel written by Koushun Takami. In fact, I didn’t really even know the novel existed.

Nonetheless, the premise is strikingly similar to that of The Hunger Games. Set in a fictional Japan where the structure of society has more or less broken down, a class of junior high school students find themselves in a contest called Battle Royale, created under the BR Act, which forces the 42 students to kill each other until only one remains. Each contestant is fitted with an electronic tracking collar, and anyone who resists the contest or walks into a randomly designated “death zone” (added as the game progresses) will have their collar detonated. Students are each given a bag of necessities and a weapon. Sounds familiar?

I don’t intend to get into a debate about whether Collins (who claims she never heard of the book until her publisher told her) copied Battle Royale, but I will say that both film versions stand up rather well independently of the other.

Battle Royale’s strength is in its relentless brutality, which starts right from the beginning and doesn’t ease until the very end, making The Hunger Games somewhat mild by comparison. Unlike the American film, which takes a long time to set up the contest, Battle Royale gets into it very quickly and efficiently.

The most amazing thing about the 114-minute film (there is also a 122-minute extended version) was how tight the script was. The story may have focused on handful of the 42 students but almost every single one had their own personality and served a different purpose. In fact, I found it incredibly easy to identify each of the characters despite the film jumping a fair bit, and this was notwithstanding that all the names were in Japanese!

Compared to The Hunger Games, Battle Royale had a much wider range of identifiable characters, which is quite a remarkable achievement considering the latter’s contestants are all from a single class, whereas the former’s are from various districts scattered across the nation.

Battle Royale’s lead protagonist would have to be Shuya Nanahara, who is played by Tatsuya Fujiwara (as soon as I saw him I was like, “Isn’t that Light from Death Note?”). The standout characters would have to be the sexually provocative Mitsuko and the psychotic Kazuo, both of whom are the main antagonists of the film.

Despite the similar ideas, I found Battle Royale to be a very different experience to The Hunger Games. The Japanese film was relentless its carnage all the way through, even though some of the violence appeared somewhat (and perhaps intentionally) fake, whereas the American film was more measured in its depiction of visceral violence and had a brooding kind of tension. Perhaps it’s a reflection of the different cultures, but the Japanese film also had some totally WTF moments (that bordered on horror or comedy or both) that underscored its “surreal” feel.

I guess that’s the way I would describe Battle Royale – terrifying in a “surreal” kind of way. While The Hunger Games was arguably more “realistic” from a technical perspective and in feel, I found the films to be equally satisfying but vastly different experiences. I’d definitely recommend the other film for those who have seen one of the two.

As for a rating, I suppose it would only be fair if I gave Battle Royale the same, though if I had watched it first, I think I might have given it a higher score.

 4.25 stars out of 5!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

← Previous Entries

Bad Behavior has blocked 681 access attempts in the last 7 days.