Whiplash(2014), directed by Damian Chazelle
Intense. Passionate. Inspiring. These are some of the key words that come to mind as the credits roll on Damian Chazelle’s latest directorial effort, Whiplash(2014).
Whiplash(2014) is a film that keeps you guessing. You think you’ve seen this type of musical-genius-in-training or tough-love-coach-who-really-isn’t-that-bad type of films before but Whiplash(2014) manages to surprise at every turn, demolishing old stereotypes and cliches and making a real ride out of it.
The relationship between the characters of J.K Simmons and Miles Teller is especially interesting, going past our preconceived notions of the unconventional student-teacher relationship into unexplored areas of fucked-up. With stellar performances from the two leads, their conflict plays out to the furious beating of the drums, symbolic of the war-like and unforgivingly competitive nature of the music industry and the chaos of raging emotions that lies at the heart of one’s passions.
Cut together with the aggressive energy and wild spontaneity that characterises the music, Whiplash(2014) makes a battlefield out of the music room, complete with a fast-talking ball-breaking drill sergeant of a conductor up front and frightened recruits shivering as they try not to drop their instruments to the floor.
Whether or not you’re a fan of music-centric films, Whiplash(2014) is sure to entertainment. Redefining expectations and breaking the old mould of the musical prodigy genre, it provides hope of originality within familiar settings.
There have been and there will be too many films that go through the same plot formulas over and over, telling us the same stories we already know so well, so much so that we can probably guess the ending to most of these films once we’re halfway through them(if even that). Whiplash(2014) therefore comes out on top as an excitingly fresh take on a familiar genre, like having a cymbal thrown at one’s face(reference to the film).
Its central theme is about sacrifice and hard-work to pursue one’s artistic passions. While the film can seem excessive in making its point at certain junctures, its message is an inspiring one that gives hope for those who seek more than an ordinary life.
I highly recommend Whiplash(2014) to anyone who hasn’t seen it. Undoubtedly, a high-octane jazzy ride into the very heat of passion and ruthless determination.
Verdict: 5/5, I will watch it again
Whiplash(2014) is a film that keeps you guessing. You think you’ve seen this type of musical-genius-in-training or tough-love-coach-who-really-isn’t-that-bad type of films before but Whiplash(2014) manages to surprise at every turn, demolishing old stereotypes and cliches and making a real ride out of it.
The relationship between the characters of J.K Simmons and Miles Teller is especially interesting, going past our preconceived notions of the unconventional student-teacher relationship into unexplored areas of fucked-up. With stellar performances from the two leads, their conflict plays out to the furious beating of the drums, symbolic of the war-like and unforgivingly competitive nature of the music industry and the chaos of raging emotions that lies at the heart of one’s passions.
Cut together with the aggressive energy and wild spontaneity that characterises the music, Whiplash(2014) makes a battlefield out of the music room, complete with a fast-talking ball-breaking drill sergeant of a conductor up front and frightened recruits shivering as they try not to drop their instruments to the floor.
Whether or not you’re a fan of music-centric films, Whiplash(2014) is sure to entertainment. Redefining expectations and breaking the old mould of the musical prodigy genre, it provides hope of originality within familiar settings.
There have been and there will be too many films that go through the same plot formulas over and over, telling us the same stories we already know so well, so much so that we can probably guess the ending to most of these films once we’re halfway through them(if even that). Whiplash(2014) therefore comes out on top as an excitingly fresh take on a familiar genre, like having a cymbal thrown at one’s face(reference to the film).
Its central theme is about sacrifice and hard-work to pursue one’s artistic passions. While the film can seem excessive in making its point at certain junctures, its message is an inspiring one that gives hope for those who seek more than an ordinary life.
I highly recommend Whiplash(2014) to anyone who hasn’t seen it. Undoubtedly, a high-octane jazzy ride into the very heat of passion and ruthless determination.
Verdict: 5/5, I will watch it again
John Wick(2014), directed by Chad Stahelski and David Leitch
Details
Film Title: John Wick
Year: 2014
Directed by: Chad Stahelski and John Leitch
Stars: Keanu Reeves, William Dafoe, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki
Running Time: 101 mins, 1 hr 41 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: After recently losing his wife, retired hitman John Wick is set on a bloody path of vengeance when the son of a Russian mob boss, unaware of who he is, kills his dog and steals his car.
Review
I have to be honest and admit that I approached John Wick(2014) with extremely low expectations(the last Keanu Reeves movie I watched was Man Of Tai Chi(2013) so can you really blame me?). I was therefore very pleasantly surprised by the slick action-packed thriller that it turned out to be.
The choreography in the film is probably its greatest strength. Combining martial arts with 'gun fu' techniques reminiscent of Hong Kong action cinema, John Wick(2014) contains some very fast-paced and interesting fight sequences, with plenty of blood, cool moves and environmental interactions. Keanu Reeves portrays a convincingly deadly and frighteningly efficient John Wick, with moves that are, thankfully, not overly complicated, thereby giving the fights a greater sense of practical realism.
Another thing that I found great about the film was its soundtrack. With the score composed by Tyler Bates and Joel J. Richard as well as additional high-octane songs from various artists, the music really sets the mood and tone for the film, giving this dark ultra-violent revenge thriller an adrenaline-pumping vibe that really gets you in John's headspace, making you feel like hitting something. The resulting effect of it all is that every kill made by John feels all the more cool and satisfying to the viewer.
Plot-wise, John Wick(2014) doesn't contain the most complex of plots, but revenge thrillers rarely do. While the idea of going out on a blood -filled rampage just because of a dog may seem excessive(to the point of absurdity perhaps) to some, I just try to keep in mind that John Wick is just not a guy to fuck with. Whether you flashed him a dirty look, spat in his direction or, God forbid, killed his dog and stole his car, you're a dead man.
John Wick(2014) probably isn't going to be winning any awards anytime soon and it's not a very emotionally engaging movie in a dramatic sense but if you're looking for a great action-packed film that's fun, exciting and full of blood and cursing Russians, then I highly recommend you give it a go.
Verdict: 3/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 20/02/2014
Film Title: John Wick
Year: 2014
Directed by: Chad Stahelski and John Leitch
Stars: Keanu Reeves, William Dafoe, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Adrianne Palicki
Running Time: 101 mins, 1 hr 41 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: After recently losing his wife, retired hitman John Wick is set on a bloody path of vengeance when the son of a Russian mob boss, unaware of who he is, kills his dog and steals his car.
Review
I have to be honest and admit that I approached John Wick(2014) with extremely low expectations(the last Keanu Reeves movie I watched was Man Of Tai Chi(2013) so can you really blame me?). I was therefore very pleasantly surprised by the slick action-packed thriller that it turned out to be.
The choreography in the film is probably its greatest strength. Combining martial arts with 'gun fu' techniques reminiscent of Hong Kong action cinema, John Wick(2014) contains some very fast-paced and interesting fight sequences, with plenty of blood, cool moves and environmental interactions. Keanu Reeves portrays a convincingly deadly and frighteningly efficient John Wick, with moves that are, thankfully, not overly complicated, thereby giving the fights a greater sense of practical realism.
Another thing that I found great about the film was its soundtrack. With the score composed by Tyler Bates and Joel J. Richard as well as additional high-octane songs from various artists, the music really sets the mood and tone for the film, giving this dark ultra-violent revenge thriller an adrenaline-pumping vibe that really gets you in John's headspace, making you feel like hitting something. The resulting effect of it all is that every kill made by John feels all the more cool and satisfying to the viewer.
Plot-wise, John Wick(2014) doesn't contain the most complex of plots, but revenge thrillers rarely do. While the idea of going out on a blood -filled rampage just because of a dog may seem excessive(to the point of absurdity perhaps) to some, I just try to keep in mind that John Wick is just not a guy to fuck with. Whether you flashed him a dirty look, spat in his direction or, God forbid, killed his dog and stole his car, you're a dead man.
John Wick(2014) probably isn't going to be winning any awards anytime soon and it's not a very emotionally engaging movie in a dramatic sense but if you're looking for a great action-packed film that's fun, exciting and full of blood and cursing Russians, then I highly recommend you give it a go.
Verdict: 3/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 20/02/2014
The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013), directed by Isao Takahata
Details
Film Title: The Tale of Princess Kaguya
Year: 2013
Directed by: Isao Takahata
Stars: Aki Asakura, Kengo Kora, Takeo Chii, Nobuko Miyamoto, Atsuko Takahata
Running Time: 137 mins, 2 hrs 17 mins
Language: Japanese
Rough Plot Synopsis: Based on the Japanese folktale The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, it tells a story of how Sanuki no Miyatsuko, a bamboo cutter, finds a miniature girl inside a glowing bamboo shoot. He brings her back home to his wife and together they raise the girl as their own daughter, hoping that one day they will grow to discover who or what she really is.
Review
Being a huge Studio Ghibli fan, I was very excited when I finally got to catch one of the studio's latest offerings The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) and I was glad to discover that my excitement was not unwarranted.
Visually, The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) is truly beautiful, making use of an unique art direction that mimics watercolour paintings. The result is an animated film that resembles a living organic painting whose story unfolds before your very eyes on the canvas. There is even a scene(where Princess Kaguya, in a fit of despair and disgust, flees at breakneck speed back to the mountains) specially drawn and animated to adopt a splattered brushstroke style that will definitely impress any viewer as yet again another memorably unique Ghibli moment.
The film score, composed yet again by Ghibli veteran and musical wizard Joe Hisaishi, is predictably another highlight of the film. Calling one back to rustic woods, gentle streams, childhood innocence and the simple mysterious wonders of nature, the music is perfect for the tale of a princess that longs for a simple life, sufficiently satisfying with modest comforts.
The overarching theme of the film is love. The protective and uncompromising love between parents and their children. The naive and innocent love between childhood friends. The highly-controversial, scandalous and oft-forbidden love between social classes. The pure and virtuous love for natural beauty and life. Together with the theme of love, the theme of happiness is also heavily examined in this film. What 'being happy' means and how one gets there are pertinent philosophical questions that are rigorously explored while addressing the unpleasant side of human nature. Materialism, Superficiality, Lust and Greed.
Sexism especially is a huge point of interest for the film, where Princess Kaguya is subjected to sexually bias traditions and customs inherent in Ancient Japan's patriarchal social system. Arranged marriages, strange and seemingly extreme make-up procedures and restrictions on everything else she does really.
The film has many tear-jerking moments, mostly because of the strong and genuine bond that I felt between Princess Kaguya and her adoptive parents. It is definitely up there with Grave of the Fireflies(1988) as one of the more moving pieces that Studio Ghibli has produced.
Overall, The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) is a film that celebrates life, it reminds us to treasure it, every hour, every minute and every second. It reminds us to treasure those around us, those that we love, and to make the most of our time together. It reminds us to love ourselves and to stay true to who we are, for only in doing so can we truly find happiness.
I definitely recommend The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) to all the Ghibli fans out there. Even for those who have yet to become acquainted with Ghibli films, this would be a great film to start with.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 19/02/2014
Film Title: The Tale of Princess Kaguya
Year: 2013
Directed by: Isao Takahata
Stars: Aki Asakura, Kengo Kora, Takeo Chii, Nobuko Miyamoto, Atsuko Takahata
Running Time: 137 mins, 2 hrs 17 mins
Language: Japanese
Rough Plot Synopsis: Based on the Japanese folktale The Tale of the Bamboo Cutter, it tells a story of how Sanuki no Miyatsuko, a bamboo cutter, finds a miniature girl inside a glowing bamboo shoot. He brings her back home to his wife and together they raise the girl as their own daughter, hoping that one day they will grow to discover who or what she really is.
Review
Being a huge Studio Ghibli fan, I was very excited when I finally got to catch one of the studio's latest offerings The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) and I was glad to discover that my excitement was not unwarranted.
Visually, The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) is truly beautiful, making use of an unique art direction that mimics watercolour paintings. The result is an animated film that resembles a living organic painting whose story unfolds before your very eyes on the canvas. There is even a scene(where Princess Kaguya, in a fit of despair and disgust, flees at breakneck speed back to the mountains) specially drawn and animated to adopt a splattered brushstroke style that will definitely impress any viewer as yet again another memorably unique Ghibli moment.
The film score, composed yet again by Ghibli veteran and musical wizard Joe Hisaishi, is predictably another highlight of the film. Calling one back to rustic woods, gentle streams, childhood innocence and the simple mysterious wonders of nature, the music is perfect for the tale of a princess that longs for a simple life, sufficiently satisfying with modest comforts.
The overarching theme of the film is love. The protective and uncompromising love between parents and their children. The naive and innocent love between childhood friends. The highly-controversial, scandalous and oft-forbidden love between social classes. The pure and virtuous love for natural beauty and life. Together with the theme of love, the theme of happiness is also heavily examined in this film. What 'being happy' means and how one gets there are pertinent philosophical questions that are rigorously explored while addressing the unpleasant side of human nature. Materialism, Superficiality, Lust and Greed.
Sexism especially is a huge point of interest for the film, where Princess Kaguya is subjected to sexually bias traditions and customs inherent in Ancient Japan's patriarchal social system. Arranged marriages, strange and seemingly extreme make-up procedures and restrictions on everything else she does really.
The film has many tear-jerking moments, mostly because of the strong and genuine bond that I felt between Princess Kaguya and her adoptive parents. It is definitely up there with Grave of the Fireflies(1988) as one of the more moving pieces that Studio Ghibli has produced.
Overall, The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) is a film that celebrates life, it reminds us to treasure it, every hour, every minute and every second. It reminds us to treasure those around us, those that we love, and to make the most of our time together. It reminds us to love ourselves and to stay true to who we are, for only in doing so can we truly find happiness.
I definitely recommend The Tale of Princess Kaguya(2013) to all the Ghibli fans out there. Even for those who have yet to become acquainted with Ghibli films, this would be a great film to start with.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 19/02/2014
Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015), directed by Sam Taylor-Johnson
Details
Film Title: Fifty Shades Of Grey
Year: 2015
Directed by: Sam Taylor-Johnson
Stars: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Eloise Mumford, Max Martini, Luke Grimes, Rita Ora
Running Time: 125 mins, 2 hrs 5 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: The life of college graduate Anastasia Steele takes an erotic turn when she begins a sadomasochistic relationship with young and enigmatic business magnate Christian Grey.
Review
As is the case with all filmic adaptations from a source material(in this case, the novel), it is always a challenge, both from the perspective of the director and from the viewer. In attempting to direct a good film adaptation, a director needs to make very hard and smart choices. A director needs to decide how closely will the film stick to the original source material, what to keep, what to discard, how much to slightly alter, how much to change entirely and what to add, if anything, in order to distinguish the film adaptation as more than just a digital copy of its source material by making full and effective use of the technology and possibilities unique to the filmic medium of storytelling. As a viewer, one must therefore be very aware of these choices that a director has made in the production of a filmic adaptation, for only then can one fairly judge if a film adaptation has transcended its source and succeeded in telling its story as powerfully(or even more powerfully) or if it has failed to achieve the same effect due to the adaptation. Since I have not read the whole novel(only the first chapter actually), I had the advantage of watching and judging Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) with an open mind, unencumbered with any expectations or prejudices of any kind. In other words, I gave the film the best chance it could have. Unfortunately, the film adaptation of E.L. James' sensational best-selling novel does not impress.
I found the film rife with many problems and, as such, was really quite unwatchable. Imagine my surprise when the lights in the cinema came on and I realised that the film was only a little over 2 hours long. It felt closer to 3...When a film feels longer than its run time, its probably bad news. It means there is something wrong with its pacing. Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) was boring to sit through because there was very little escalation and there was just nothing much going on at all. At least, that's how it seemed.
The main problem with it is how closely it stuck to its source material: a novel that made heavy use of free indirect speech(essentially a free interchanging mix of first and third person narration). I have it on good authority that the film was very faithful to the novel. TOO faithful in fact. I only read the first chapter and when I watched the beginning of the film it was as though the novel WAS the script. This can be good or bad, depending on how you view it. For certain people who like the filmic versions of their favourite novels to be exactly as the novel describes it, then this may be a good thing. However, for people like me, I believe that when adapting from a source, it is not enough simply to present the original as it is. I believe that a director has to know the source material well enough that he can make creative decisions and changes that will still aid in the story-telling and yet provide something new and original for the fans. If not, what is the point really for an adaptation into film? A film cannot simply regurgitate material that was prepared for another medium. A film has to have its own message, its own life, it has to have things working for it that might not work for other mediums, just like how certain things that worked well in other mediums might not work if translated over directly to film. That, I feel, is the main problem with Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015). It felt like watching a novel, and the problem with watching a novel is that you do not get to hear the character's thoughts(of course this can be rectified with some creative decisions), which incidentally happens to be the 'strongest' point of the novel and its main source of character development and content. Inner turmoil, doubt, soul-searching and internal debate was the crux of the novel. Take that all out, and you have to make some smart decisions in order to keeper your viewer convinced and interested to know more. That was where the film failed hardest, it offered nothing more than a direct translation of a book with an overly-simplistic plot.
The acting also left much to be desired. I don't know if my age or sex causes any sort of bias, but I found much of the dialogue and its delivery cringe-worthy and off-putting, not to mention cheesy as hell.
Another huge problem with the film(or perhaps the novel) is the fact that aside from the sex, there is just really nothing else going on at all. Seriously, nada, zilch, fucking nothing. After the first sex scene, every one after just felt the same. It was numbingly boring, especially since you know that because its limited by its M18 rating, you probably won't see anything much except bad softcore porn(that was really how it felt like). Even the BDSM bits felt cleaned up. It was an R-rated book coughed up into an M18 movie.
Overall, a very disappointing use of two hours of my life. So unless you're a tweenager that flushes at the sight of nudity and is easily satisfied with a movie that stars attractive actors and actresses, Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) is one to avoid. It trades plot for visuals, which is a sin in my books. It really is a film that offers you no real reason to watch it. If you want to watch it for the plot, there really isn't one to speak of. If you want to watch it for the sex, you'd probably end up feeling cheated and be better off watching actual porn.
Simply put, Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) is not porn but it seems like it, because amidst all the softcore sex scenes, the acting, dialogue and plot is only slightly better.
Verdict: 1/5, NEVER AGAIN
Posted on 15/02/2014
Film Title: Fifty Shades Of Grey
Year: 2015
Directed by: Sam Taylor-Johnson
Stars: Dakota Johnson, Jamie Dornan, Eloise Mumford, Max Martini, Luke Grimes, Rita Ora
Running Time: 125 mins, 2 hrs 5 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: The life of college graduate Anastasia Steele takes an erotic turn when she begins a sadomasochistic relationship with young and enigmatic business magnate Christian Grey.
Review
As is the case with all filmic adaptations from a source material(in this case, the novel), it is always a challenge, both from the perspective of the director and from the viewer. In attempting to direct a good film adaptation, a director needs to make very hard and smart choices. A director needs to decide how closely will the film stick to the original source material, what to keep, what to discard, how much to slightly alter, how much to change entirely and what to add, if anything, in order to distinguish the film adaptation as more than just a digital copy of its source material by making full and effective use of the technology and possibilities unique to the filmic medium of storytelling. As a viewer, one must therefore be very aware of these choices that a director has made in the production of a filmic adaptation, for only then can one fairly judge if a film adaptation has transcended its source and succeeded in telling its story as powerfully(or even more powerfully) or if it has failed to achieve the same effect due to the adaptation. Since I have not read the whole novel(only the first chapter actually), I had the advantage of watching and judging Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) with an open mind, unencumbered with any expectations or prejudices of any kind. In other words, I gave the film the best chance it could have. Unfortunately, the film adaptation of E.L. James' sensational best-selling novel does not impress.
I found the film rife with many problems and, as such, was really quite unwatchable. Imagine my surprise when the lights in the cinema came on and I realised that the film was only a little over 2 hours long. It felt closer to 3...When a film feels longer than its run time, its probably bad news. It means there is something wrong with its pacing. Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) was boring to sit through because there was very little escalation and there was just nothing much going on at all. At least, that's how it seemed.
The main problem with it is how closely it stuck to its source material: a novel that made heavy use of free indirect speech(essentially a free interchanging mix of first and third person narration). I have it on good authority that the film was very faithful to the novel. TOO faithful in fact. I only read the first chapter and when I watched the beginning of the film it was as though the novel WAS the script. This can be good or bad, depending on how you view it. For certain people who like the filmic versions of their favourite novels to be exactly as the novel describes it, then this may be a good thing. However, for people like me, I believe that when adapting from a source, it is not enough simply to present the original as it is. I believe that a director has to know the source material well enough that he can make creative decisions and changes that will still aid in the story-telling and yet provide something new and original for the fans. If not, what is the point really for an adaptation into film? A film cannot simply regurgitate material that was prepared for another medium. A film has to have its own message, its own life, it has to have things working for it that might not work for other mediums, just like how certain things that worked well in other mediums might not work if translated over directly to film. That, I feel, is the main problem with Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015). It felt like watching a novel, and the problem with watching a novel is that you do not get to hear the character's thoughts(of course this can be rectified with some creative decisions), which incidentally happens to be the 'strongest' point of the novel and its main source of character development and content. Inner turmoil, doubt, soul-searching and internal debate was the crux of the novel. Take that all out, and you have to make some smart decisions in order to keeper your viewer convinced and interested to know more. That was where the film failed hardest, it offered nothing more than a direct translation of a book with an overly-simplistic plot.
The acting also left much to be desired. I don't know if my age or sex causes any sort of bias, but I found much of the dialogue and its delivery cringe-worthy and off-putting, not to mention cheesy as hell.
Another huge problem with the film(or perhaps the novel) is the fact that aside from the sex, there is just really nothing else going on at all. Seriously, nada, zilch, fucking nothing. After the first sex scene, every one after just felt the same. It was numbingly boring, especially since you know that because its limited by its M18 rating, you probably won't see anything much except bad softcore porn(that was really how it felt like). Even the BDSM bits felt cleaned up. It was an R-rated book coughed up into an M18 movie.
Overall, a very disappointing use of two hours of my life. So unless you're a tweenager that flushes at the sight of nudity and is easily satisfied with a movie that stars attractive actors and actresses, Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) is one to avoid. It trades plot for visuals, which is a sin in my books. It really is a film that offers you no real reason to watch it. If you want to watch it for the plot, there really isn't one to speak of. If you want to watch it for the sex, you'd probably end up feeling cheated and be better off watching actual porn.
Simply put, Fifty Shades Of Grey(2015) is not porn but it seems like it, because amidst all the softcore sex scenes, the acting, dialogue and plot is only slightly better.
Verdict: 1/5, NEVER AGAIN
Posted on 15/02/2014
Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015), directed by Matthew Vaughn
Details
Film Title: Kingsman: The Secret Service
Year: 2015
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Stars: Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Michael Caine, Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Strong, Sofia Boutella, Mark Hamill, Jack Davenport
Running Time: 129 mins, 2 hrs 9 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: When Kingsman secret agent Harry Hart's partner sacrificed his life on a mission to save Harry, Harry vowed to watch over his young son and one day repay the debt. When the boy, Eggsy, reaches his mid-twenties, Harry offers him a chance to work for the Kingsman. Meanwhile, technology tycoon and suspiciously unconvincing philanthropist Richard Valentine attracts the attention of the Kingsman when he starts giving away free SIM cards around the world...
Review
I must admit that I went to watch Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015) with quite low expectations, thinking it to be just another action-spy flick that will try too hard to be funny and will probably fall flat on its face. I was therefore pleasantly corrected as soon as the first action sequence took place on-screen.
The action in Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015) is quite unique. It is fast-forwarded slightly and edited together with quick cuts in between in order to give the viewer a greater sense of immediacy, situational immersion and impact, making each punch, each kick and each umbrella-swung mug of Guinness seem to land with extra 'oomph'.
The violence in the film is slightly, but obviously quite intentionally, over-the-top as well, which leads to its M18 rating. However, the tone of the film(owing in large part to the performances of its actors and the music) prevents it from being just about the glorification of violence, as with 'torture porn' or 'gorno'(a portmanteau of 'gore' and 'porno') films. Instead, it comes across almost like a dark comedy, downplaying the horror and spectacle of the violence as part and parcel of the dangerous work expected by the secret agents of Kingsman.
Colin Firth's performance as seasoned secret agent Harry Hart was also a joy to watch, displaying a good mix of gentlemanly manners(expected of all secret agents post-James Bond) and convincingly deadly fighting skills(that was lacking in most James Bond films). Leading man Taron Egerton contrasted nicely with Firth's performance as rough-around-the-edges Eggsy, his oft well-timed crude remarks coming across as a welcome splash of cold water on the face(pun intended, watch the film to understand) to slap us back to reality, reminding us of the film's unique stance as both tribute and satire to the spy genre.
As with any Bond film, and any other films that seek to celebrate it, the heroes are only as cool as their villains. In Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015), not only does the bad guy have a hot bodyguard(played by Sofia Boutella) that can kick 'arse' with a pair of dangerous-ass scissor-like prosthetic legs, but the bad guy also happens to be Samuel L. Jackson. Not only JUST Samuel L. Jackson, but Samuel L. Jackson talking with a lisp. I don't know about you but that's reason enough to watch the film for me.
Overall, with its over-the-top action, unique blend of dry wit and crude humour along with the obligatory cool arsenal of imaginative spy gadgets expected of spy genre films, I think Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015) is a fun and exciting flick that will entertain most action fans and the general public.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 12/02/2014
Film Title: Kingsman: The Secret Service
Year: 2015
Directed by: Matthew Vaughn
Stars: Colin Firth, Taron Egerton, Michael Caine, Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Strong, Sofia Boutella, Mark Hamill, Jack Davenport
Running Time: 129 mins, 2 hrs 9 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: When Kingsman secret agent Harry Hart's partner sacrificed his life on a mission to save Harry, Harry vowed to watch over his young son and one day repay the debt. When the boy, Eggsy, reaches his mid-twenties, Harry offers him a chance to work for the Kingsman. Meanwhile, technology tycoon and suspiciously unconvincing philanthropist Richard Valentine attracts the attention of the Kingsman when he starts giving away free SIM cards around the world...
Review
I must admit that I went to watch Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015) with quite low expectations, thinking it to be just another action-spy flick that will try too hard to be funny and will probably fall flat on its face. I was therefore pleasantly corrected as soon as the first action sequence took place on-screen.
The action in Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015) is quite unique. It is fast-forwarded slightly and edited together with quick cuts in between in order to give the viewer a greater sense of immediacy, situational immersion and impact, making each punch, each kick and each umbrella-swung mug of Guinness seem to land with extra 'oomph'.
The violence in the film is slightly, but obviously quite intentionally, over-the-top as well, which leads to its M18 rating. However, the tone of the film(owing in large part to the performances of its actors and the music) prevents it from being just about the glorification of violence, as with 'torture porn' or 'gorno'(a portmanteau of 'gore' and 'porno') films. Instead, it comes across almost like a dark comedy, downplaying the horror and spectacle of the violence as part and parcel of the dangerous work expected by the secret agents of Kingsman.
Colin Firth's performance as seasoned secret agent Harry Hart was also a joy to watch, displaying a good mix of gentlemanly manners(expected of all secret agents post-James Bond) and convincingly deadly fighting skills(that was lacking in most James Bond films). Leading man Taron Egerton contrasted nicely with Firth's performance as rough-around-the-edges Eggsy, his oft well-timed crude remarks coming across as a welcome splash of cold water on the face(pun intended, watch the film to understand) to slap us back to reality, reminding us of the film's unique stance as both tribute and satire to the spy genre.
As with any Bond film, and any other films that seek to celebrate it, the heroes are only as cool as their villains. In Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015), not only does the bad guy have a hot bodyguard(played by Sofia Boutella) that can kick 'arse' with a pair of dangerous-ass scissor-like prosthetic legs, but the bad guy also happens to be Samuel L. Jackson. Not only JUST Samuel L. Jackson, but Samuel L. Jackson talking with a lisp. I don't know about you but that's reason enough to watch the film for me.
Overall, with its over-the-top action, unique blend of dry wit and crude humour along with the obligatory cool arsenal of imaginative spy gadgets expected of spy genre films, I think Kingsman: The Secret Service(2015) is a fun and exciting flick that will entertain most action fans and the general public.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 12/02/2014
Birdman(2014), directed by Alejandro G. Inarritu
Details
Film Title: Birdman
Year: 2014
Directed by: Alejandro G. Inarritu
Stars: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan
Running Time: 119 mins, 1 hr 59 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: A faded Hollywood actor famous for his superhero role struggles to mount a Broadway adaptation of a Raymond Carver play.
Film Title: Birdman
Year: 2014
Directed by: Alejandro G. Inarritu
Stars: Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, Andrea Riseborough, Amy Ryan
Running Time: 119 mins, 1 hr 59 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: A faded Hollywood actor famous for his superhero role struggles to mount a Broadway adaptation of a Raymond Carver play.
Nightcrawler(2014), directed by Dan Gilroy
Details
Film Title: Nightcrawler
Year: 2014
Directed by: Dan Gilroy
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Bill Paxton, Riz Ahmed, Ann Cusack
Running Time: 117 mins, 1 hr 57 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: A sociopathic ex-thief finds a new obsession and passion shooting footage of violent crimes and accidents in Los Angeles and selling it to news channels.
Film Title: Nightcrawler
Year: 2014
Directed by: Dan Gilroy
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo, Bill Paxton, Riz Ahmed, Ann Cusack
Running Time: 117 mins, 1 hr 57 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: A sociopathic ex-thief finds a new obsession and passion shooting footage of violent crimes and accidents in Los Angeles and selling it to news channels.
Big Hero 6(2014), directed by Don Hall and Chris Williams
Details
Film Title: Big Hero 6
Year: 2014
Directed by: Don Hall and Chris Williams
Stars: Ryan Potter, Scott Adsit, T.J Miller, Jamie Chung, Damon Wayans Jr. , Genesis Rodriguez, James Cromwell
Running Time: 102 mins, 1 hr 42 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: A young robotics prodigy forms a group of superheroes amongst his friends in order to battle a masked supervillain who stole and weaponised his technology.
Review
As I grow older and as technology for animation and graphics get better, I find myself becoming increasingly more picky about the kinds of animation that I watch. That is because I find that animation nowadays seem to be polarised to either extreme: Awesome or Shit. Most animation nowadays get away with looking good and being cute while having really crappy storylines and characters that offer nothing really to those aged 10 and above. It almost seems as though their main objective is to simply delight children with funny sounds and images, which in turn usually translates to a box office hit. However, parents accompanying their children to watch these films will have to endure an hour or two of overly-cutesy dialogue, one-dimensional characters and unbelievably retarded stuff that only children will love(because they are retarded). With so many animated movies being Shit(in my opinion) nowadays, I'm glad that I found Big Hero 6(2014) awesome.
The setting of the story is in fictional futuristic city San Fransokyo(essentially a cross between San Franciso and Tokyo), which is pretty cool in and of itself. An interesting mix of western and asian culture, the design of the city reflects the increasingly cross-cultural nature of Disney films as well as their audience, even depicting an oriental-style Golden Gate Bridge, which I thought was really cool.
The dialogue and humour of the film was quite well done too. Not clumsily handled nor too heavy-handed in execution, the characters felt believable and genuine whilst still comically quirky in their own ways. I like the misfit bunch of nerdy superheroes assembled together in this film. Although they are suspiciously and conveniently competent fighters for a supposedly nerdy bunch, I think their 'powers' are pretty cool and the action sequences were fun and exciting to watch.
The character of Baymax, the large and soft personal healthcare robot, is obviously the film's main selling point and center of attraction to children. His character is supposed to be the 'cute' element in the film essential to most animation nowadays. While this is usually overdone to a degree necessitating sighs and cringes, I found Baymax to be refreshingly endearing and, loathe as I am to admit it, cute. I think what is important for 'cute' characters is not that they act cute but they are cute just by being who they are. In my opinion, many animated characters fail in their design in this regard, coming across as trying too hard to be cute.
Big Hero 6(2014) does not have the most complex of plots out there, as is the case with most Disney films, however what it lacks in complexity it makes up for in imagination and creativity, brought to vivid life through beautiful animation that is sure to hook any wandering eyeballs to the screen.
I definitely recommend Big Hero 6(2014) to all animation lovers out there, an animated film which reassures me that amidst the myriad of crappy animated movies that are coming out nowadays which only care about merchandising, there are still some quality ones that deserve your time and attention.
As Baymax would ask "Are you satisfied with your healthcare?" Indeed, I am satisfied.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 11/02/2014
Film Title: Big Hero 6
Year: 2014
Directed by: Don Hall and Chris Williams
Stars: Ryan Potter, Scott Adsit, T.J Miller, Jamie Chung, Damon Wayans Jr. , Genesis Rodriguez, James Cromwell
Running Time: 102 mins, 1 hr 42 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: A young robotics prodigy forms a group of superheroes amongst his friends in order to battle a masked supervillain who stole and weaponised his technology.
Review
As I grow older and as technology for animation and graphics get better, I find myself becoming increasingly more picky about the kinds of animation that I watch. That is because I find that animation nowadays seem to be polarised to either extreme: Awesome or Shit. Most animation nowadays get away with looking good and being cute while having really crappy storylines and characters that offer nothing really to those aged 10 and above. It almost seems as though their main objective is to simply delight children with funny sounds and images, which in turn usually translates to a box office hit. However, parents accompanying their children to watch these films will have to endure an hour or two of overly-cutesy dialogue, one-dimensional characters and unbelievably retarded stuff that only children will love(because they are retarded). With so many animated movies being Shit(in my opinion) nowadays, I'm glad that I found Big Hero 6(2014) awesome.
The setting of the story is in fictional futuristic city San Fransokyo(essentially a cross between San Franciso and Tokyo), which is pretty cool in and of itself. An interesting mix of western and asian culture, the design of the city reflects the increasingly cross-cultural nature of Disney films as well as their audience, even depicting an oriental-style Golden Gate Bridge, which I thought was really cool.
The dialogue and humour of the film was quite well done too. Not clumsily handled nor too heavy-handed in execution, the characters felt believable and genuine whilst still comically quirky in their own ways. I like the misfit bunch of nerdy superheroes assembled together in this film. Although they are suspiciously and conveniently competent fighters for a supposedly nerdy bunch, I think their 'powers' are pretty cool and the action sequences were fun and exciting to watch.
The character of Baymax, the large and soft personal healthcare robot, is obviously the film's main selling point and center of attraction to children. His character is supposed to be the 'cute' element in the film essential to most animation nowadays. While this is usually overdone to a degree necessitating sighs and cringes, I found Baymax to be refreshingly endearing and, loathe as I am to admit it, cute. I think what is important for 'cute' characters is not that they act cute but they are cute just by being who they are. In my opinion, many animated characters fail in their design in this regard, coming across as trying too hard to be cute.
Big Hero 6(2014) does not have the most complex of plots out there, as is the case with most Disney films, however what it lacks in complexity it makes up for in imagination and creativity, brought to vivid life through beautiful animation that is sure to hook any wandering eyeballs to the screen.
I definitely recommend Big Hero 6(2014) to all animation lovers out there, an animated film which reassures me that amidst the myriad of crappy animated movies that are coming out nowadays which only care about merchandising, there are still some quality ones that deserve your time and attention.
As Baymax would ask "Are you satisfied with your healthcare?" Indeed, I am satisfied.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 11/02/2014
Interstellar(2014), directed by Christopher Nolan
Details
Film Title: Interstellar
Year: 2014
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn, Michael Caine
Running Time: 169 mins, 2 hrs 49 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: In an apocalyptic future, crop blight has crippled Mankind into a desperate and hopeless way of life that is slowly but surely headed for extinction. Former NASA pilot Cooper and his daughter Murphy stumble upon coded messages sent from an unknown source and follow it to discover that the government has secretly funded space missions to locate habitable planets. Cooper is sent as humanity's last hope on a dangerous mission to find a new home for Earth's inhabitants before time runs out.
Review
Nolan has done it again. Trust him to deliver a film that literally blows your mind with its scale, depth, ambition, music, creativity and originality.
I definitely think that Interstellar(2014) is Nolan's most moving film by far, with many tear-jerking moments spread evenly between awe-inspiring space scenery and grippingly suspenseful action.
The plot itself is more complex than your average film (but then again, this is usually the case with mosts films involving time-travel, the good ones at least) and will definitely have you leaving the cinema in quiet meditation as you slowly descend back down after being transported mind, body and soul, to the stars.
The music for the film, composed once again by long-time Nolan collaborator Hans Zimmer, is, not surprisingly, sublime. Though the images on the screen help transport the viewer to space, it is his music that gets them to believe they're there. Transcendently beautiful and melancholy, Zimmer's music makes space terrifying and wondrous at the same time. For Nolan's most drama-heavy film so far, Zimmer's music is responsible for most of the tear jerking as well, amplifying tenfold the emotions already expressed onscreen. I also found it interesting how prominently his music figured in the film, sometimes being such a demanding presence and being played at such a high volume that I actually couldn't make out some dialogue. The overall effect is that, at times, the film almost resembles a concert, with the images subordinated to the music and its emotions.
The realistic representation of space was very masterfully done as well. One, perhaps minor and geeky thing that I noticed and loved was the fact that, as in real space, the space scenes in the film were silent. This is because sound cannot travel through a vacuum and thus, and as accurately portrayed in the film, anything that happens in space will occur in silence. Many space operas and sci-fi movies seem to avoid this little bit of reality, choosing to fill it instead with the sounds of explosions, spaceship noises etc. The only other few films that I can think of off the top of my head that bothers to respect such reality is Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey(1968) and Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity(2013). This may seem like an insignificant detail to most but I think that doing so really distinguishes any space/sci-fi flick from the rest.
Matthew McConaughey's acting was definitely another major plus point for the film, his portrayal of the reluctant-hero and regretful-father Cooper really giving the viewer an emotionally powerful medium through which to experience the film's plot.
Definitely another must-see Nolan hit that will leave you hungry for his next exploit.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 22/11/2014
Film Title: Interstellar
Year: 2014
Directed by: Christopher Nolan
Stars: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Bill Irwin, Ellen Burstyn, Michael Caine
Running Time: 169 mins, 2 hrs 49 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: In an apocalyptic future, crop blight has crippled Mankind into a desperate and hopeless way of life that is slowly but surely headed for extinction. Former NASA pilot Cooper and his daughter Murphy stumble upon coded messages sent from an unknown source and follow it to discover that the government has secretly funded space missions to locate habitable planets. Cooper is sent as humanity's last hope on a dangerous mission to find a new home for Earth's inhabitants before time runs out.
Review
Nolan has done it again. Trust him to deliver a film that literally blows your mind with its scale, depth, ambition, music, creativity and originality.
I definitely think that Interstellar(2014) is Nolan's most moving film by far, with many tear-jerking moments spread evenly between awe-inspiring space scenery and grippingly suspenseful action.
The plot itself is more complex than your average film (but then again, this is usually the case with mosts films involving time-travel, the good ones at least) and will definitely have you leaving the cinema in quiet meditation as you slowly descend back down after being transported mind, body and soul, to the stars.
The music for the film, composed once again by long-time Nolan collaborator Hans Zimmer, is, not surprisingly, sublime. Though the images on the screen help transport the viewer to space, it is his music that gets them to believe they're there. Transcendently beautiful and melancholy, Zimmer's music makes space terrifying and wondrous at the same time. For Nolan's most drama-heavy film so far, Zimmer's music is responsible for most of the tear jerking as well, amplifying tenfold the emotions already expressed onscreen. I also found it interesting how prominently his music figured in the film, sometimes being such a demanding presence and being played at such a high volume that I actually couldn't make out some dialogue. The overall effect is that, at times, the film almost resembles a concert, with the images subordinated to the music and its emotions.
The realistic representation of space was very masterfully done as well. One, perhaps minor and geeky thing that I noticed and loved was the fact that, as in real space, the space scenes in the film were silent. This is because sound cannot travel through a vacuum and thus, and as accurately portrayed in the film, anything that happens in space will occur in silence. Many space operas and sci-fi movies seem to avoid this little bit of reality, choosing to fill it instead with the sounds of explosions, spaceship noises etc. The only other few films that I can think of off the top of my head that bothers to respect such reality is Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey(1968) and Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity(2013). This may seem like an insignificant detail to most but I think that doing so really distinguishes any space/sci-fi flick from the rest.
Matthew McConaughey's acting was definitely another major plus point for the film, his portrayal of the reluctant-hero and regretful-father Cooper really giving the viewer an emotionally powerful medium through which to experience the film's plot.
Definitely another must-see Nolan hit that will leave you hungry for his next exploit.
Verdict: 4/5, I will watch it again
Posted on 22/11/2014
Gone Girl(2014), directed by David Fincher
Details
Film Title: Gone Girl
Year: 2014
Directed by: David Fincher
Stars: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry
Running Time: 149 mins, 2 hrs 29 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Nick Dunne returns home on the day of his fifth wedding anniversary to discover that his wife is missing under suspicious circumstances. After reporting to the police, his wife's disappearance attracts heavy press coverage as she was the much beloved inspiration for her parents' popular Amazing Amy children's books. Questions and suspicions start to arise as the media turn their attentions towards Nick.
Verdict: 4/5, I may watch it again
Posted on 20/11/2014
Film Title: Gone Girl
Year: 2014
Directed by: David Fincher
Stars: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Tyler Perry
Running Time: 149 mins, 2 hrs 29 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Nick Dunne returns home on the day of his fifth wedding anniversary to discover that his wife is missing under suspicious circumstances. After reporting to the police, his wife's disappearance attracts heavy press coverage as she was the much beloved inspiration for her parents' popular Amazing Amy children's books. Questions and suspicions start to arise as the media turn their attentions towards Nick.
Verdict: 4/5, I may watch it again
Posted on 20/11/2014
Fury(2014), directed by David Ayer
Details
Film Title: Fury
Year: 2014
Directed by: David Ayer
Stars: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal, Jason Isaacs
Running Time: 134 mins, 2 hrs 14 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Battle-seasoned army sergeant Wardaddy commands a five-man tank crew in the Allies' final push in the European Theatre during WWII. On a deadly mission behind enemy lines, they find themselves vastly outnumbered and out-gunned and have to rely on each other to overcome the odds and push back their Nazi enemies.
Review
Definitely one of the better films of the year, Fury(2014) delivers as an enjoyable war film.
Though its plot may be simple and almost predictable, its greatest strength lies in the performance of its actors. There are some very tense moments as Wardaddy's crew initiate the new rookie into their trusted circle, bringing him up to speed on the horrors of war, such as killing without remorse and with blind hatred and enjoying the spoils of war.
The thing that separates Fury(2014) from the hundreds upon hundreds of other war films is that it deals specifically with tank warfare. As such, audiences get to see and learn more about how tanks operate and battle during that time, which is interesting really, since most other war films usually centre around infantry combat and tactics.
The combat in the film does require some suspension of disbelief(there are many 'incredible' moments where either side conveniently displays gross incompetence in order to better dramatise the odds of survival) however, all in all, I feel that it was enjoyable and exciting, containing just the right amount of gore to effectively get its anti-war message across.
The key themes of the film address the desensitising effects of war and the moral ambiguity faced by soldiers daily in the field. It postulates that, ultimately, men are willing to destroy all that they hate in order to defend all that they love, that war makes monsters of men on both sides.
Though I would rather fulfil my cravings to watch WWII-related stuff by re-watching Steven Spielberg's Band Of Brothers series for like the hundredth time, Fury(2014) does make a satisfyingly dark and gritty war film as well and will surely please any fans of the genre.
Verdict: 4/5, I may watch it again
Posted 1/11/2014
Film Title: Fury
Year: 2014
Directed by: David Ayer
Stars: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal, Jason Isaacs
Running Time: 134 mins, 2 hrs 14 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Battle-seasoned army sergeant Wardaddy commands a five-man tank crew in the Allies' final push in the European Theatre during WWII. On a deadly mission behind enemy lines, they find themselves vastly outnumbered and out-gunned and have to rely on each other to overcome the odds and push back their Nazi enemies.
Review
Definitely one of the better films of the year, Fury(2014) delivers as an enjoyable war film.
Though its plot may be simple and almost predictable, its greatest strength lies in the performance of its actors. There are some very tense moments as Wardaddy's crew initiate the new rookie into their trusted circle, bringing him up to speed on the horrors of war, such as killing without remorse and with blind hatred and enjoying the spoils of war.
The thing that separates Fury(2014) from the hundreds upon hundreds of other war films is that it deals specifically with tank warfare. As such, audiences get to see and learn more about how tanks operate and battle during that time, which is interesting really, since most other war films usually centre around infantry combat and tactics.
The combat in the film does require some suspension of disbelief(there are many 'incredible' moments where either side conveniently displays gross incompetence in order to better dramatise the odds of survival) however, all in all, I feel that it was enjoyable and exciting, containing just the right amount of gore to effectively get its anti-war message across.
The key themes of the film address the desensitising effects of war and the moral ambiguity faced by soldiers daily in the field. It postulates that, ultimately, men are willing to destroy all that they hate in order to defend all that they love, that war makes monsters of men on both sides.
Though I would rather fulfil my cravings to watch WWII-related stuff by re-watching Steven Spielberg's Band Of Brothers series for like the hundredth time, Fury(2014) does make a satisfyingly dark and gritty war film as well and will surely please any fans of the genre.
Verdict: 4/5, I may watch it again
Posted 1/11/2014
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles(2014), directed by Jonathan Liebesman
Details
Film Title: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Year: 2014
Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman
Stars: Megan Fox, Alan Ritchson, Jeremy Howard, Pete Ploszek, Noel Fisher, Will Arnett, Danny Woodburn, Tony Shalhoub, William Fitchner, Tohoru Masamune
Running Time: 101 mins, 1 hr 41 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: April O'Neil, a reporter for Channel 6 News in New York City, discovers the vigilante team of Ninja Turtles during a raid of one of the Foot Clans' smuggling operations. She meets their 'father' and teacher, Master Splinter, in their home in the sewers and quickly learn that they have some history together, her late father being the scientist whose experimentations bore fruit in the form of Master Splinter and The Turtles. However, things quickly turn sour when the leader of the Foot Clan, Shredder, learns about The Turtles, as he has plans of his own for them.
Review
I went in expecting to see a film with good action and a respectably believable storyline and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles delivers, well, sort of.
I thought the action was pretty good, it was clear enough(most of the time), fast-paced and innovative given the unique fighting scenarios that can be imagined from having giant turtle-liked heroes. I felt that the Turtles were fleshed out pretty well, with each displaying quite accurately their different personalties. I wanted their fighting styles to be more distinct between each one so that their personalities could be represented through that as well but, overall, the fighting from the Turtles all seem quite similar. The humour is mainly quite lowbrow as well(with more than a few lame moments that were cringe-worthy), however I suppose that this is in part keeping true to the original TMNT franchise, the Ninja Turtles being teenagers after all.
Probably the best part of the film for me was that there existed a strong antagonist to the Turtles in the form of Shredder. I thought the design of his armour was really cool(reminiscent of the Silver Samurai in The Wolverine(2013) and the Predator from Predator(1987)) and was pleasantly surprised that despite its bulky design, Shredder was still capable of handling himself very deftly and fluidly, making him a menacing presence on screen as he takes the other characters to school on hand-to-hand combat.
If there was one thing that I thought was the main problem for me for this film, it was the plot(no surprise there though I suppose). It just did not seem very convincing and realistic, with many moments where you're going 'Wait, why is he doing that? If he wanted that, why didn't he just do this instead?" However, I realise that for such franchise-adapted action films, it is usually too much to ask for both a decent storyline and good action.
If you're looking for explosive action, quick-fire comedic dialogue and a general sort of plot that you really shouldn't spend too much time thinking about, then give Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles a shot and have some fun.
Verdict: 2/5, I probably wouldn't watch it again
Posted 15/9/2014
Film Title: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Year: 2014
Directed by: Jonathan Liebesman
Stars: Megan Fox, Alan Ritchson, Jeremy Howard, Pete Ploszek, Noel Fisher, Will Arnett, Danny Woodburn, Tony Shalhoub, William Fitchner, Tohoru Masamune
Running Time: 101 mins, 1 hr 41 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: April O'Neil, a reporter for Channel 6 News in New York City, discovers the vigilante team of Ninja Turtles during a raid of one of the Foot Clans' smuggling operations. She meets their 'father' and teacher, Master Splinter, in their home in the sewers and quickly learn that they have some history together, her late father being the scientist whose experimentations bore fruit in the form of Master Splinter and The Turtles. However, things quickly turn sour when the leader of the Foot Clan, Shredder, learns about The Turtles, as he has plans of his own for them.
Review
I went in expecting to see a film with good action and a respectably believable storyline and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles delivers, well, sort of.
I thought the action was pretty good, it was clear enough(most of the time), fast-paced and innovative given the unique fighting scenarios that can be imagined from having giant turtle-liked heroes. I felt that the Turtles were fleshed out pretty well, with each displaying quite accurately their different personalties. I wanted their fighting styles to be more distinct between each one so that their personalities could be represented through that as well but, overall, the fighting from the Turtles all seem quite similar. The humour is mainly quite lowbrow as well(with more than a few lame moments that were cringe-worthy), however I suppose that this is in part keeping true to the original TMNT franchise, the Ninja Turtles being teenagers after all.
Probably the best part of the film for me was that there existed a strong antagonist to the Turtles in the form of Shredder. I thought the design of his armour was really cool(reminiscent of the Silver Samurai in The Wolverine(2013) and the Predator from Predator(1987)) and was pleasantly surprised that despite its bulky design, Shredder was still capable of handling himself very deftly and fluidly, making him a menacing presence on screen as he takes the other characters to school on hand-to-hand combat.
If there was one thing that I thought was the main problem for me for this film, it was the plot(no surprise there though I suppose). It just did not seem very convincing and realistic, with many moments where you're going 'Wait, why is he doing that? If he wanted that, why didn't he just do this instead?" However, I realise that for such franchise-adapted action films, it is usually too much to ask for both a decent storyline and good action.
If you're looking for explosive action, quick-fire comedic dialogue and a general sort of plot that you really shouldn't spend too much time thinking about, then give Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles a shot and have some fun.
Verdict: 2/5, I probably wouldn't watch it again
Posted 15/9/2014
The Lunchbox(2013), directed by Ritesh Batra
Details
Film Title: The Lunchbox
Year: 2013
Directed by: Ritesh Batra
Stars: Irrfan Khan, Nimrat Kaur, Nawazuddin Siddiqui
Running Time: 105 mins, 1 hr 45 mins
Language: Hindi and English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Ila, a young wife looking to reinvigorate her increasingly dreary marriage, decides one day to cook up a particularly delicious meal for her husband's lunch break. However, due to an extremely rare mix-up of the famous "dabbawalas"(a complicated system that picks up and delivers lunches from restaurants or homes to men at work) in Mumbai, the delicious lunch gets mistakenly delivered to a lonely accountant and widower Saajan. What develops between them then is an epistolary romance built on food.
Review
I had heard that this film received impressive ratings and reviews so I had high expectations when I finally got around to watching it. Very pleased to say that I was not disappointed.
I think the first thing that struck me about the film was how beautiful it looked and how well it transported me to the busy and crowded buses, trains and streets of Mumbai. There was a dynamism and energy to the film and in its mise en scene that transferred over well to the viewer.
I guess what appealed to me most about this film was its sweet simplicity, that though nothing much really happens throughout the film aside from frequent epistolary exchanges between Ila and Saajan, the acting, dialogue and script was so well done that I felt sucked into their giddy, peculiar romance. I felt Ila's guilty excitement whenever she prepared each meal, I felt Saajan's hungering anticipation whenever it came to lunch time and his subsequent satisfying pleasure after he tasted the food. I also felt their nervous breathlessness in exchanging letters through the lunchbox, both having individual reasons to know that such a relationship is probably not the best idea, and yet, they write and write and continue writing.
I think what is unique about the romance in this film is that it is built on food and not on appearances, as is the case with most other romance flicks. Ila and Saajan do not really see each other throughout the film and yet they share this special bond, one cooking, one eating, both sharing their lives through words and paper. For me, that kind of sweet and pure affection between a man and a woman is hard to find nowadays, in or out of film, within a society that values outward appearances so highly. I think the film sends a beautiful message and reminder that sometimes love does not have to depend so much on looks and finally gives us another great example of a romance that does not hinge on the proverbial "Love at first sight' cliche.
I find The Lunchbox(2013) to be quite an enjoyable and uplifting film, and it does have its fair share of humorous moments. I would suggest avoid watching it just before you sleep though because it will probably make you hungry. You have been warned. Definitely one to watch.
Verdict: 4/5, I will probably watch it again
Posted 22/8/2014
Film Title: The Lunchbox
Year: 2013
Directed by: Ritesh Batra
Stars: Irrfan Khan, Nimrat Kaur, Nawazuddin Siddiqui
Running Time: 105 mins, 1 hr 45 mins
Language: Hindi and English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Ila, a young wife looking to reinvigorate her increasingly dreary marriage, decides one day to cook up a particularly delicious meal for her husband's lunch break. However, due to an extremely rare mix-up of the famous "dabbawalas"(a complicated system that picks up and delivers lunches from restaurants or homes to men at work) in Mumbai, the delicious lunch gets mistakenly delivered to a lonely accountant and widower Saajan. What develops between them then is an epistolary romance built on food.
Review
I had heard that this film received impressive ratings and reviews so I had high expectations when I finally got around to watching it. Very pleased to say that I was not disappointed.
I think the first thing that struck me about the film was how beautiful it looked and how well it transported me to the busy and crowded buses, trains and streets of Mumbai. There was a dynamism and energy to the film and in its mise en scene that transferred over well to the viewer.
I guess what appealed to me most about this film was its sweet simplicity, that though nothing much really happens throughout the film aside from frequent epistolary exchanges between Ila and Saajan, the acting, dialogue and script was so well done that I felt sucked into their giddy, peculiar romance. I felt Ila's guilty excitement whenever she prepared each meal, I felt Saajan's hungering anticipation whenever it came to lunch time and his subsequent satisfying pleasure after he tasted the food. I also felt their nervous breathlessness in exchanging letters through the lunchbox, both having individual reasons to know that such a relationship is probably not the best idea, and yet, they write and write and continue writing.
I think what is unique about the romance in this film is that it is built on food and not on appearances, as is the case with most other romance flicks. Ila and Saajan do not really see each other throughout the film and yet they share this special bond, one cooking, one eating, both sharing their lives through words and paper. For me, that kind of sweet and pure affection between a man and a woman is hard to find nowadays, in or out of film, within a society that values outward appearances so highly. I think the film sends a beautiful message and reminder that sometimes love does not have to depend so much on looks and finally gives us another great example of a romance that does not hinge on the proverbial "Love at first sight' cliche.
I find The Lunchbox(2013) to be quite an enjoyable and uplifting film, and it does have its fair share of humorous moments. I would suggest avoid watching it just before you sleep though because it will probably make you hungry. You have been warned. Definitely one to watch.
Verdict: 4/5, I will probably watch it again
Posted 22/8/2014
Locke(2013), directed by Steven Knight
Details
Film Title: Locke
Year: 2013
Directed by: Steven Knight
Stars: Tom Hardy, Ruth Wilson, Olivia Colman, Andrew Scott, Ben Daniels
Running Time: 84 mins, 1 hr 24 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Ivan Locke, a dedicated family man and successful construction manager, receives a phone call on the eve of the biggest challenge of his career that sets in motion a series of events that threaten his careful cultivated existence.
Review
When I first heard that this film was shot entirely in a car, I was quite intrigued by the boldness of the idea but at the same time wary that while it may turn out to be an interesting experiment, it could also go the other way and be a total bore. Upon watching it, I was glad that it turned out to be the former.
Tom Hardy's performance in the film holds it all together. There is something about his dynamic range of expressible emotions that manages to turn 84 minutes of a man driving and talking on the phone into a gripping and moving drama. The last time I encountered Hardy occupying such a prominent spotlight in a film was Nicolas Winding Refn's Bronson(2008), in which he acted impressively as the title character, Charles Bronson. Casting Hardy in this role as Ivan Locke was a smart move as Hardy is definitely an actor that can hold his own with his screen presence.
Hardy visibly undergoes a roller-coaster of emotions as his character struggles to juggle his responsibilities to his family(wife and 2 sons), his company and Bethan(a co-worker with whom he had a one-night stand with and whose impending labour is the cause for Locke's sudden departure from his life and the source of conflict in the film). The stresses with dealing with such great responsibilities also lead to Locke's conversations with his imaginary father, who is suggested to be seated in the backseat of the car(Locke talking to him through the rearview mirror).
While not seeming like much at first, one quickly realises that the film deals with some pretty heavy themes. The fine balance between work and family, the moral ambiguity of actions when faced with good intentions and penitence, professionalism at all cost, the question of "what exactly is the right thing to do?" are some those explored.
I find what is most interesting about this film is just how much it engages the viewer's imagination, that though the whole film only shows Ivan Locke in his car, through his conversations I can actual picture the other people who are on the line speaking with him and all the other actions that are happening simultaneously or in between calls. They could have chosen to film it conventionally, with scenes cutting between Locke driving and the other characters, but I feel the effect and rawness of the drama would definitely have suffered had they done so. As it is now, the film and dialogue provides sufficient information to fire up the viewer's imagination, which is the real beauty of the film really. The main bulk of the film is shown onscreen, the rest happens inside the viewer's head.
I think this film is bold, innovative and surprisingly gripping and I definitely recommend film-lovers to give it a go.
Verdict: 4/5, I may watch it again
Posted 19/8/2014
Film Title: Locke
Year: 2013
Directed by: Steven Knight
Stars: Tom Hardy, Ruth Wilson, Olivia Colman, Andrew Scott, Ben Daniels
Running Time: 84 mins, 1 hr 24 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Ivan Locke, a dedicated family man and successful construction manager, receives a phone call on the eve of the biggest challenge of his career that sets in motion a series of events that threaten his careful cultivated existence.
Review
When I first heard that this film was shot entirely in a car, I was quite intrigued by the boldness of the idea but at the same time wary that while it may turn out to be an interesting experiment, it could also go the other way and be a total bore. Upon watching it, I was glad that it turned out to be the former.
Tom Hardy's performance in the film holds it all together. There is something about his dynamic range of expressible emotions that manages to turn 84 minutes of a man driving and talking on the phone into a gripping and moving drama. The last time I encountered Hardy occupying such a prominent spotlight in a film was Nicolas Winding Refn's Bronson(2008), in which he acted impressively as the title character, Charles Bronson. Casting Hardy in this role as Ivan Locke was a smart move as Hardy is definitely an actor that can hold his own with his screen presence.
Hardy visibly undergoes a roller-coaster of emotions as his character struggles to juggle his responsibilities to his family(wife and 2 sons), his company and Bethan(a co-worker with whom he had a one-night stand with and whose impending labour is the cause for Locke's sudden departure from his life and the source of conflict in the film). The stresses with dealing with such great responsibilities also lead to Locke's conversations with his imaginary father, who is suggested to be seated in the backseat of the car(Locke talking to him through the rearview mirror).
While not seeming like much at first, one quickly realises that the film deals with some pretty heavy themes. The fine balance between work and family, the moral ambiguity of actions when faced with good intentions and penitence, professionalism at all cost, the question of "what exactly is the right thing to do?" are some those explored.
I find what is most interesting about this film is just how much it engages the viewer's imagination, that though the whole film only shows Ivan Locke in his car, through his conversations I can actual picture the other people who are on the line speaking with him and all the other actions that are happening simultaneously or in between calls. They could have chosen to film it conventionally, with scenes cutting between Locke driving and the other characters, but I feel the effect and rawness of the drama would definitely have suffered had they done so. As it is now, the film and dialogue provides sufficient information to fire up the viewer's imagination, which is the real beauty of the film really. The main bulk of the film is shown onscreen, the rest happens inside the viewer's head.
I think this film is bold, innovative and surprisingly gripping and I definitely recommend film-lovers to give it a go.
Verdict: 4/5, I may watch it again
Posted 19/8/2014
Snowpiercer(2013), directed by Bong Joon Ho
Details
Film Title: Snowpiercer
Year: 2013
Directed by: Bong Joon Ho
Stars: Chris Evans, Kang-ho Song, Ed Harris, John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Jamie Bell, Ah-sung Ko
Running Time: 126 mins, 2 hrs 6 mins
Language: English and Korean
Rough Plot Synopsis: Set in a future where a failed climate-change experiment kills off all life on the planet except for the lucky few who boarded the Snowpiercer, a highly-advanced train that travels around the globe. However, after 18 years of mistreatment, the lower-class passengers decide to fight for their rights and lives.
Review
I think that this film has a very interesting premise, as a matter of fact, I think that that is its strongest point. The idea of all of humanity, or rather whatever is left of it, being bunched up and compartmentalised into this long massive train is pretty intriguing. It kind of makes the segregation of people by "class" more literal and creates a unique circumstance under which the depths of the human psyche can be explored. Sure, I'll admit that it is indeed quite far-fetched, but I guess if you're going to watch a sci-fi film, you'd need to be able to suspend your sense of disbelief even more than others.
The film also has a pretty star-studded cast, from Chris Evans to John Hurt, Tilda Swinton and Ed Harris. Evans plays the lead, Curtis Everett, who leads the rebellion, and does so convincingly enough. While the actors in this film do alright in their roles, I cannot help but feel a lack of a real connection to them, and I think that's a shame because the story had such promise and yet the delivery was not so satisfying. There were several action sequences that were somewhat exciting but overall I found myself getting tired of the action, wanting the film instead to delve more into exposition.
Also, I actually watched this film first without the subtitles and though there were some scenes with Korean dialogue that I didn't understand, those scenes were usually accompanied with Kang-ho Song's character using some translator thingy, which is how he communicated with Chris Evans' character. However, towards the end of the film, Kang-ho Song has this big monologue scene with Chris Evans and he doesn't use the translator thingy! I couldn't tell if Chris Evans understood him or not but I sure as hell didn't so I went to get the subtitles. From his responses, it did seem like Chris Evans did understand Kang-ho Song though and in that case I just don't know how the hell that is possible, because I don't speak Korean and I listened to his monologue and I didn't understand did-idly shit.
There is a twist towards the end that is quite revelational, and does add a nice surprise to the otherwise straight-forward narrative. I guess what I wanted to see were more interesting characters rather than just seemingly one-dimensional evil henchmen most of the time. Overall, I find that it was an interesting idea but the execution of it was unsatisfying. Sounded better than it was to watch.
Verdict: 3/5, I probably wouldn't watch it again though
Posted 14/8/2014
Film Title: Snowpiercer
Year: 2013
Directed by: Bong Joon Ho
Stars: Chris Evans, Kang-ho Song, Ed Harris, John Hurt, Tilda Swinton, Jamie Bell, Ah-sung Ko
Running Time: 126 mins, 2 hrs 6 mins
Language: English and Korean
Rough Plot Synopsis: Set in a future where a failed climate-change experiment kills off all life on the planet except for the lucky few who boarded the Snowpiercer, a highly-advanced train that travels around the globe. However, after 18 years of mistreatment, the lower-class passengers decide to fight for their rights and lives.
Review
I think that this film has a very interesting premise, as a matter of fact, I think that that is its strongest point. The idea of all of humanity, or rather whatever is left of it, being bunched up and compartmentalised into this long massive train is pretty intriguing. It kind of makes the segregation of people by "class" more literal and creates a unique circumstance under which the depths of the human psyche can be explored. Sure, I'll admit that it is indeed quite far-fetched, but I guess if you're going to watch a sci-fi film, you'd need to be able to suspend your sense of disbelief even more than others.
The film also has a pretty star-studded cast, from Chris Evans to John Hurt, Tilda Swinton and Ed Harris. Evans plays the lead, Curtis Everett, who leads the rebellion, and does so convincingly enough. While the actors in this film do alright in their roles, I cannot help but feel a lack of a real connection to them, and I think that's a shame because the story had such promise and yet the delivery was not so satisfying. There were several action sequences that were somewhat exciting but overall I found myself getting tired of the action, wanting the film instead to delve more into exposition.
Also, I actually watched this film first without the subtitles and though there were some scenes with Korean dialogue that I didn't understand, those scenes were usually accompanied with Kang-ho Song's character using some translator thingy, which is how he communicated with Chris Evans' character. However, towards the end of the film, Kang-ho Song has this big monologue scene with Chris Evans and he doesn't use the translator thingy! I couldn't tell if Chris Evans understood him or not but I sure as hell didn't so I went to get the subtitles. From his responses, it did seem like Chris Evans did understand Kang-ho Song though and in that case I just don't know how the hell that is possible, because I don't speak Korean and I listened to his monologue and I didn't understand did-idly shit.
There is a twist towards the end that is quite revelational, and does add a nice surprise to the otherwise straight-forward narrative. I guess what I wanted to see were more interesting characters rather than just seemingly one-dimensional evil henchmen most of the time. Overall, I find that it was an interesting idea but the execution of it was unsatisfying. Sounded better than it was to watch.
Verdict: 3/5, I probably wouldn't watch it again though
Posted 14/8/2014
Guardians of the Galaxy(2014), directed by James Gunn
Details
Film Title: Guardians of the Galaxy
Year: 2014
Directed by: James Gunn
Stars: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro
Running Time: 122 mins, 2 hrs 2 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: After stealing a mysterious orb, Peter Quill, also known as Starlord, gets arrested and thrown into a maximum-security superhuman prison known as the Kyln. There, he forms a surprising alliance with a bunch of other extraterrestrial inmates and together they fight for not just their freedom, but their survival as well as other parties express their interest in obtaining the orb.
Review
I had heard many good things about this film before I watched it from friends and family alike, and though I was at first apprehensive about the film based on its trailer, I was pleasantly surprised with the result. I think the story reveals a little more about the diversity and vastness of the Marvel universe, with most of the film set away from Earth(only shown in the beginning and a little near the end). We get our first glimpse at Thanos(after being teased with a short scene of him at the end of The Avengers(2012)) as he converses with the film's main antagonist Ronan who, I must admit, was pretty disappointing. The impression he left me kind of reminded me of the main antagonist in Thor: The Dark World(2013), Malekith. Talked a big show but really, aside from some punching and kicking, failed to display any real form of power and all in all just didn't seem believable, almost as though he wasn't really driven to fulfil his mission as much as he said he was. They say that great heroes are defined by their villains, and there's nothing worst in a superhero flick than a weak villain.
Putting my disappointment with the villain aside, I feel that the group dynamics among the principal cast was pretty good. I especially liked the humour in the film, which I feel was definitely its strongest point. The jokes are fast and snappy and rely mainly on awkward situations where there is plenty of misunderstanding. All in all, very fun, fast-paced and light-hearted which is a definite shift in tone from the other more serious Marvel films. Bradley Cooper definitely serves as the main source of comic relief in the group as Rocket, a genetically-engineered raccoon, and I think there is great chemistry between him and Chris Pratt(i.e Starlord) when they bicker endlessly. Vin Diesel voices Groot, a tree-like extraterrestrial, whose entire vocabulary consists of "I Am Groot". He's actually really powerful, arguably the most powerful in the group, and actually pretty cute in an innocent-baby kind of way. I think the action was very well done as well, balanced nicely to serve the story. I just wished that there was a more climatic battle with the main antagonist after building him up through the film.
Overall, I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy(2014) and feel that it is a quirky and interesting addition to Marvel's growing collection of films. I think that one has to approach it differently as compared to, say, Captain America: The Winter Soldier(2013). This film is light in its mood and promises fast, fun action and humorous dialogue and in those terms I think it delivers in abundance. I definitely recommend it to all Marvel fans out there or just anyone who enjoys a superhero romp.
Verdict: 4/5, I wouldn't mind watching it again
Posted 12/8/2014
Film Title: Guardians of the Galaxy
Year: 2014
Directed by: James Gunn
Stars: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, Bradley Cooper, Vin Diesel, Lee Pace, Michael Rooker, Djimon Hounsou, Benicio Del Toro
Running Time: 122 mins, 2 hrs 2 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: After stealing a mysterious orb, Peter Quill, also known as Starlord, gets arrested and thrown into a maximum-security superhuman prison known as the Kyln. There, he forms a surprising alliance with a bunch of other extraterrestrial inmates and together they fight for not just their freedom, but their survival as well as other parties express their interest in obtaining the orb.
Review
I had heard many good things about this film before I watched it from friends and family alike, and though I was at first apprehensive about the film based on its trailer, I was pleasantly surprised with the result. I think the story reveals a little more about the diversity and vastness of the Marvel universe, with most of the film set away from Earth(only shown in the beginning and a little near the end). We get our first glimpse at Thanos(after being teased with a short scene of him at the end of The Avengers(2012)) as he converses with the film's main antagonist Ronan who, I must admit, was pretty disappointing. The impression he left me kind of reminded me of the main antagonist in Thor: The Dark World(2013), Malekith. Talked a big show but really, aside from some punching and kicking, failed to display any real form of power and all in all just didn't seem believable, almost as though he wasn't really driven to fulfil his mission as much as he said he was. They say that great heroes are defined by their villains, and there's nothing worst in a superhero flick than a weak villain.
Putting my disappointment with the villain aside, I feel that the group dynamics among the principal cast was pretty good. I especially liked the humour in the film, which I feel was definitely its strongest point. The jokes are fast and snappy and rely mainly on awkward situations where there is plenty of misunderstanding. All in all, very fun, fast-paced and light-hearted which is a definite shift in tone from the other more serious Marvel films. Bradley Cooper definitely serves as the main source of comic relief in the group as Rocket, a genetically-engineered raccoon, and I think there is great chemistry between him and Chris Pratt(i.e Starlord) when they bicker endlessly. Vin Diesel voices Groot, a tree-like extraterrestrial, whose entire vocabulary consists of "I Am Groot". He's actually really powerful, arguably the most powerful in the group, and actually pretty cute in an innocent-baby kind of way. I think the action was very well done as well, balanced nicely to serve the story. I just wished that there was a more climatic battle with the main antagonist after building him up through the film.
Overall, I enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy(2014) and feel that it is a quirky and interesting addition to Marvel's growing collection of films. I think that one has to approach it differently as compared to, say, Captain America: The Winter Soldier(2013). This film is light in its mood and promises fast, fun action and humorous dialogue and in those terms I think it delivers in abundance. I definitely recommend it to all Marvel fans out there or just anyone who enjoys a superhero romp.
Verdict: 4/5, I wouldn't mind watching it again
Posted 12/8/2014
Hercules(2014), directed by Brett Ratner
Details
Film Title: Hercules
Year: 2014
Directed by: Brett Ratner
Stars: Dwayne Johnson, Ian Mcshane, Rufus Sewell, Joseph Fiennes, John Hurt
Running Time: 98 mins, 1 hr 38 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Based on the graphic novel Hercules: The Thracian Wars by Radical Comics, the film is about Hercules and his band of mercenaries as they are hired by Lord Cotys to help train the armies of Thrace to defend the kingdom against the ruthless warlord Rheseus. They however eventually discover that things are not as they seem.
Review
I would like to start by saying that if you watched the trailer first before watching this film, like I did, you might find yourself pretty disappointed at the result. The trailer promised everything that one could possibly want out of a Hercules live-action film,and that is basically his battles with the numerous mythical beasts and creatures from Greek Mythology(eg. The Nemean Lion, Lernaean Hydra, Erymanthian Boar, Cerberus) during his infamous Twelve Labors. However, after watching the film, you'd realise that their version of Hercules has no mythical creatures or monsters whatsoever and they are all mere exaggerations of everyday occurrences.
Now, while this is an interesting and more realistic take on the Herculean legend, that makes it seem more possible and plausible to have occurred in history, it totally took all the excitement and interest that had grown in me from the trailer and that I had brought with me to the cinema. What an outrage! I felt conned of my money. The trailer promised epic battles with gigantic monsters yet I found out that those scenes were merely the first 10-15 minutes or so of the film, and the rest where just battles between humans...what the hell man! This is another reason I really despise trailers, because sometimes they are used to deliver a promise of a film that is so different from the actual film that it advertises for, and Hercules(2014) is a prime example. What a bloody scam.
Though I am pissed about being misled about the film's premise, all in all, the film does deliver some exciting action sequences and Dwayne Johnson does shine in the title role of Hercules, definitely looking the part and being able to pull it off convincingly. I can't really say the same for his band of mercenaries whom I find rather dull and uninteresting. The fact that most of their names ended with -us didn't really help as well in distinguishing who was who. Perhaps the most exciting scene would be the battle between Hercules and the Thracian army against the local barbarians. Either than that, the rest of the film...well I can barely remember what else happens so I guess that says enough about it.
***On a side note, I don't know why but in this year alone(2014), including this film, there are a total of 3 Hercules-related films. Seriously, what the fuck is going on and why the hell didn't they check if other Hercules film were coming out. The other two were The Legend of Hercules and Hercules Reborn. Brett Ratner's Hercules happens to be the best among the lot, but well that really isn't saying much...AT ALL.
Verdict: 2/5 , I don't think I will ever watch it again.
Posted 9/8/2014
Film Title: Hercules
Year: 2014
Directed by: Brett Ratner
Stars: Dwayne Johnson, Ian Mcshane, Rufus Sewell, Joseph Fiennes, John Hurt
Running Time: 98 mins, 1 hr 38 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Based on the graphic novel Hercules: The Thracian Wars by Radical Comics, the film is about Hercules and his band of mercenaries as they are hired by Lord Cotys to help train the armies of Thrace to defend the kingdom against the ruthless warlord Rheseus. They however eventually discover that things are not as they seem.
Review
I would like to start by saying that if you watched the trailer first before watching this film, like I did, you might find yourself pretty disappointed at the result. The trailer promised everything that one could possibly want out of a Hercules live-action film,and that is basically his battles with the numerous mythical beasts and creatures from Greek Mythology(eg. The Nemean Lion, Lernaean Hydra, Erymanthian Boar, Cerberus) during his infamous Twelve Labors. However, after watching the film, you'd realise that their version of Hercules has no mythical creatures or monsters whatsoever and they are all mere exaggerations of everyday occurrences.
Now, while this is an interesting and more realistic take on the Herculean legend, that makes it seem more possible and plausible to have occurred in history, it totally took all the excitement and interest that had grown in me from the trailer and that I had brought with me to the cinema. What an outrage! I felt conned of my money. The trailer promised epic battles with gigantic monsters yet I found out that those scenes were merely the first 10-15 minutes or so of the film, and the rest where just battles between humans...what the hell man! This is another reason I really despise trailers, because sometimes they are used to deliver a promise of a film that is so different from the actual film that it advertises for, and Hercules(2014) is a prime example. What a bloody scam.
Though I am pissed about being misled about the film's premise, all in all, the film does deliver some exciting action sequences and Dwayne Johnson does shine in the title role of Hercules, definitely looking the part and being able to pull it off convincingly. I can't really say the same for his band of mercenaries whom I find rather dull and uninteresting. The fact that most of their names ended with -us didn't really help as well in distinguishing who was who. Perhaps the most exciting scene would be the battle between Hercules and the Thracian army against the local barbarians. Either than that, the rest of the film...well I can barely remember what else happens so I guess that says enough about it.
***On a side note, I don't know why but in this year alone(2014), including this film, there are a total of 3 Hercules-related films. Seriously, what the fuck is going on and why the hell didn't they check if other Hercules film were coming out. The other two were The Legend of Hercules and Hercules Reborn. Brett Ratner's Hercules happens to be the best among the lot, but well that really isn't saying much...AT ALL.
Verdict: 2/5 , I don't think I will ever watch it again.
Posted 9/8/2014
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes(2014), directed by Matt Reeves
Details
Film Title: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Year: 2014
Directed by: Matt Reeves
Stars: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Toby Kebbell
Running Time: 131 mins, 2 hrs 11 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Following the events of Rise of the Planet of the Apes(2011), the film continues ten years later with Caesar as he establishes and governs a growing ape community located in the Muir Woods, isolated from the rest of the post-apocalyptic world that is the result of the ALZ-113 virus wiping out most of humanity. One day however, Caesar's son Blue Eyes and his friend Ash encounter some humans near the ape's forest sanctuary, which leads them to discover that there is a human settlement nearby and that the humans desire passage near the ape community in order to get a hydroelectric dam working that would restore power to their city. Tensions run high between the two species as neither fully trusts the other...and for good reason.
Review
If you enjoyed Rise of the Planet of the Apes(2011), like I did, you will enjoy Dawn of the Planet of the Apes(2014) as well. Like its predecessor, it is a visual treat, with the apes looking believably natural while displaying a glimmer of intelligence, mostly from their surprisingly human eyes. Having watched the original Planet of the Apes film series, I can honestly say that the digital apes in this reboot series sells the fantasy of an emerging race of intelligent apes much more convincingly than in the past with the human actors in ape costumes. The attention to detail in the animation is astounding, and not altogether surprising since Weta Digital has been known for having so many amazing past accomplishments under their belt eg. Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Hobbit films, King Kong, District 9 etc.
The story is great, while essentially a remake of Battle for the Planet of the Apes(1973), it raises interesting issues surrounding the tense situation between the humans and the apes. Are they really so different? Are the apes better, in all senses of the word, than the humans as Caesar believes? What right does either species have to stake a claim of dominion over the world? Is being human merely just a statement reflecting one's race or does it have implications on one's actions as well? Can two intelligent species ever truly coexist peacefully?
Perhaps what I am most impressed by in this film is the acting, especially by the actors who played the apes. Don't get me wrong, the actors who played the humans were fine too, but their performances pale in comparison to those of the apes and anyone who has watched the film will probably agree with me on that point. Andy Serkis astounds again in his performance as Caesar, his acting ability breathing life and emotion into his CGI counterpart, making Caesar a joy to watch onscreen. Of course, after Serkis' stellar performance as Gollum in Peter Jackson's The Lord of The Rings Trilogy, one has high expectations when approaching a film with him as a motion-capture actor, and Serkis delivers. Another pleasant surprise was Toby Kebbell's performance as Koba, which I feel was worthy of attention as well. His body language made it hard to really get a fix on his emotions and thus his intentions, making his character extremely unsettling and despicable. There was an unforgettable scene where Koba pretends to be a fool so that the soldiers would let their guard down, allowing him to kill them. Personally, I think that that was the best scene in the film, all the while we have this dreaded feeling that Koba is about to do something violent and yet his goofing around puts us alittle at ease, creating this uncomfortable tension in the viewer which was just amazing for a performance to achieve.
All in all, I really enjoyed Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and I would recommend fans of both the original and the new reboot series, and even those who have watched neither, to catch it. As for myself, I am simply waiting in anticipation for the next film in this series which, I am sure, will be enjoyable as well.
Verdict: 4/5, I wouldn't mind watching it again
Posted 9/8/2014
Film Title: Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Year: 2014
Directed by: Matt Reeves
Stars: Andy Serkis, Jason Clarke, Gary Oldman, Keri Russell, Toby Kebbell
Running Time: 131 mins, 2 hrs 11 mins
Language: English
Rough Plot Synopsis: Following the events of Rise of the Planet of the Apes(2011), the film continues ten years later with Caesar as he establishes and governs a growing ape community located in the Muir Woods, isolated from the rest of the post-apocalyptic world that is the result of the ALZ-113 virus wiping out most of humanity. One day however, Caesar's son Blue Eyes and his friend Ash encounter some humans near the ape's forest sanctuary, which leads them to discover that there is a human settlement nearby and that the humans desire passage near the ape community in order to get a hydroelectric dam working that would restore power to their city. Tensions run high between the two species as neither fully trusts the other...and for good reason.
Review
If you enjoyed Rise of the Planet of the Apes(2011), like I did, you will enjoy Dawn of the Planet of the Apes(2014) as well. Like its predecessor, it is a visual treat, with the apes looking believably natural while displaying a glimmer of intelligence, mostly from their surprisingly human eyes. Having watched the original Planet of the Apes film series, I can honestly say that the digital apes in this reboot series sells the fantasy of an emerging race of intelligent apes much more convincingly than in the past with the human actors in ape costumes. The attention to detail in the animation is astounding, and not altogether surprising since Weta Digital has been known for having so many amazing past accomplishments under their belt eg. Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Hobbit films, King Kong, District 9 etc.
The story is great, while essentially a remake of Battle for the Planet of the Apes(1973), it raises interesting issues surrounding the tense situation between the humans and the apes. Are they really so different? Are the apes better, in all senses of the word, than the humans as Caesar believes? What right does either species have to stake a claim of dominion over the world? Is being human merely just a statement reflecting one's race or does it have implications on one's actions as well? Can two intelligent species ever truly coexist peacefully?
Perhaps what I am most impressed by in this film is the acting, especially by the actors who played the apes. Don't get me wrong, the actors who played the humans were fine too, but their performances pale in comparison to those of the apes and anyone who has watched the film will probably agree with me on that point. Andy Serkis astounds again in his performance as Caesar, his acting ability breathing life and emotion into his CGI counterpart, making Caesar a joy to watch onscreen. Of course, after Serkis' stellar performance as Gollum in Peter Jackson's The Lord of The Rings Trilogy, one has high expectations when approaching a film with him as a motion-capture actor, and Serkis delivers. Another pleasant surprise was Toby Kebbell's performance as Koba, which I feel was worthy of attention as well. His body language made it hard to really get a fix on his emotions and thus his intentions, making his character extremely unsettling and despicable. There was an unforgettable scene where Koba pretends to be a fool so that the soldiers would let their guard down, allowing him to kill them. Personally, I think that that was the best scene in the film, all the while we have this dreaded feeling that Koba is about to do something violent and yet his goofing around puts us alittle at ease, creating this uncomfortable tension in the viewer which was just amazing for a performance to achieve.
All in all, I really enjoyed Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and I would recommend fans of both the original and the new reboot series, and even those who have watched neither, to catch it. As for myself, I am simply waiting in anticipation for the next film in this series which, I am sure, will be enjoyable as well.
Verdict: 4/5, I wouldn't mind watching it again
Posted 9/8/2014