The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Ratings: 7.7/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Fantasy Adventure

Bilbo Baggins, a Hobbit (aka Halfling), goes on an unexpected journey with a group of 13 Dwarves to the Lonely Mountain, the mountain which the Dwarves once called home but was taken over by the dragon, Smaug. 

If you've watched The Lord of The Rings trilogy, the characters (actually to be specific, the races of Middle-earth such as the Elves, Dwarves, Hobbits, Wizards, Orcs, Troys etc.), the fantasy world and the story would strike a familiar ring... even if you haven't, the narrative-style story plots/development was clear and introductory even to laymen. 

Since The Hobbit was written and published before The Lord of The Rings as a children's fantasy novel, you can expect the movie to be pretty kiddish at times. The trailer pre-emped me for cheesy light-hearted humor. I cannot help but compare this with The Lord of The Rings, and my expectations of it didn't fail me. 

All in all, I didn't quite like The Hobbit. It was a notch down and the action scenes weren't too pow-wow-ry. Which of course would be unfair of me to fault it because of the genre of it, but all in all, it's achieves what it was intended to, to entertain and to bring the audience into a world new fantasy world, not exactly that new for most. The CG this time round wasn't that awesomely realistic... which also made a fair bit of contribution to its inferiority.

*spoilers ahead* There's more screen time for Gandalf, the Wizard, and I didn't like how everytime the group of Dwarves got into trouble, Gandalf would always come to save the day. It made the Dwarves look pretty weak, unlike the group who went to Mount Doom to destroy the One Ring to rule them all. And while the battle-of-the-wits scene of Smeagol (the cunning schizo Gollum) and Bilbo Baggings was refreshing, it turned out draggy after a while. *major spoilers ahead* The ending scene with the griffins rescuing the group made me wonder why didn't they just bring the entire group to Lonely Mountain? Apart from the fact that it would cut the story short from a trilogy to a monology? 

However, since Bilbo Baggins is the uncle of Frodo Baggins, the protagonist from The Lord of The Rings, there was a cameo of, of course his adopted son Frodo! There were also Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Saruman (Christopher Lee, not Singapore's Christopher Lee), Smeagol (The Gollum) and Elrond (Hugo Weaving, villain from the Matrix Trilogy and protagonist of V for Vendetta). All of which I believe will be featured again the next 2 sequels to come. 

Don't bother sitting till the end of the credits because there isn't any after credits scenes, the last scene, is of the gold basking Smaug, period. 

So did it have a cliff hanger ending just like most trilogies would? I wouldn't say so, for it ended quite well actually... even though it was pretty anti-climaxal. The nemesis of the supposed Dwarves King, Thorin accompanying the group was the Orc Captain Boldog, who slayed Thorin's father, the previous King. There was a confrontation between Thorin and Boldog at the end, but the action was short-lived, hence, the disappointing anti-climaxal ending. 

Thorin had the charisma of Aragorn (the human "King" from Lord of The Rings), a character worth cheering for, but despite the disappointment, I'm putting my chips on an epic duel of him with Boldog in the upcoming sequels. 

Life of Pi

Ratings: 8.4/10

Film Class: B+ 

Genre: "Fantasy" Drama

I was holding back my 3 earlier posts because I didn't have the drive to blog them especially during this hectic period of mine. However, after watching Life of Pi today, I thought I certainly had to post a review of it. 

I held back on watching it, cos' frankly, I don't really like how "fake" the visuals seem during the trailer. They were too fantasy-like for me. And to watch a movie about a boy and his friendship with a tiger? I expected it to be preeety booring... 

I did slap myself (not literally) after that, not to keep myself awake, but for thinking this movie was going to be just another kiddy-fantasy lack of dialogue film. Even though he did direct a few good movies, I'm not a fan of Ang Lee, so I wasn't tempted by the mention of his name in the trailer. And the fact that the book was once a best seller, also wasn't that strong a motivation for me. 

I... caught it anyway (had 2 free tickets), and thank God I did. Just like how this film would have explained it, I believe there's a reason for everything that happens. 

Be prepared for a rather lengthy review, any less of it would be to do it injustice. I've heard a couple of my friends saying how they didn't like the movie because it was a very "alone"/solo kinda film. Well, you either like it, or you don't. A boy being stranded out at sea with having only the company of a tiger. Was this like Cast Away? And as some of the reviews claim, "The Next Avatar"? Er... yup, it's stating the obvious, but Life of Pi is in a class of its own. To sum it up early, it's like a hybrid of Cast Away, Avatar, Big Fish, Chronicles of Narnia and Doubt.

*Major major spoilers ahead, with synopsis, sorry for being evil by fusing the 2, just this time I promise. But if you haven't caught the film, I would recommend checking the synopsis out on Imdb first... * 

Cast Away, because he's stranded at sea, and instead of "Wilson", Tom Hanks' rugby ball, there's "Richard Parker", the tiger. But it's not that void of dialogue because Pi, the protagonist's name, would think-talk to himself and the story was narrated by the adult Pi, hence the story of Pi. 

Avatar, cos' of the stunning out-of-the-world visuals of the ocean creatures. While mostly exaggerated at times, it brings out the beauty of the ocean and it's habitants during unwelcoming (for the cast)/ welcoming (for the audience) moments. Notably, the scenes of luminous jelly fishes, flying fishes and the island full of meerkats were all breathtakingly memorable. 

Big Fish, the entire movie was a narrative film, showing a novelist interviewing, or having a chat with a grown up Pi. There were elements of fantasy in his story, but instead of them being viewed as unreal, in Big Fish, Life of Pi is more directed towards the "fantasy" being true. 

Chronicles of Narnia, there were references to religions, and a unique on-screen discussion about religions, specifically Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. While I don't exactly know how the animals and Pi are referenced, I would imagine there's some hint of "Noah's Ark" and the relationship with God between Pi and the tiger. 

Doubt, at the end of film, it doesn't tell you the "truth", but more on what you want to believe. The movie gives you the choice to believe what is, and what is not, though it was skewed towards the "fantasy" being the truth. I thought it was inappropriate to leave out the inverted commas in "fantasy" when I typed it in the genre because just like one's faith and belief in God, while some "facts" cannot be reasoned like the splitting of the Red Sea by Moses etc., that doesn't exactly mean it's not real or that it didn't happen... which is one of the main plots of the movie. 

If after reading you still don't know what this movie is about, it's actually primarily about faith in God (religions). 

The opening scene already got me psyched with what seemed like a short 5-min silent documentary on animals (I love animals!). The scenes behind the origins of the boy and how he got his name were light-hearted and engaging, but things got rather sombre after his shipwreck, leaving him all alone with the tiger. 

If you thought this movie was about a boy and his friendship with the stranded animals, you thought wrong. The only stranded animal was the tiger. The only animal he ever made connection with was the tiger. And if you thought this movie was about a seemingly impossible friendship with a tiger on board a stranded boat, you thought wrong too. Because the connection with the tiger was a realistic one. No hugging, BFFs one-tragedy brought them closer together scenes. What you'll see is the constant fear and constant efforts by Pi to tame the wild tiger. 

Making friends was never on his agenda, surviving was. There was no human pet-talk to the tiger which would somehow make it seem to understand human language, or either of them protecting one another by shielding the other party with their bodies... or what not. The "loose" connection between the both of them, was what I didn't expect, and was glad there wasn't the cliché animal-human connections one would normally see in films. 

There were quite a handful of "morals of the story", one on faith in religions, the other on the strength of the human spirit, also on whether animals actually "feel" and another, about goodbyes. I didn't get the carnivorous island and thought the discovery of a tooth in a wrapped up plant was off, but am sure it meant something.

The ending scene explained blatantly that the tiger did feel for Pi (that Pi did cross his mind before leaving him) and that connections between animals and humans were indeed possible, even with vicious carnivorous wild animals. Just like humans, all animals have souls, and having a soul means more than just being stuck at survivor instincts, but also being able to create invisible connections. 

But the one thing which really struck a chord in my heart was about saying goodbye. And I will leave you with that. 

There was a scene about Pi explaining to the novelist that he felt hurt that the tiger didn't even look back at him before entering the woods and disappearing from his life forever. He also regretted never saying goodbye to his father and to his family who died during the shipwreck. 

The goodbyes that really matter, are never said. Or at least one would never really have the chance to say their final goodbyes. When someone close to you passes away, it will always be too late to say your goodbyes because you wouldn't expect it to happen, resulting in life-time remorse. Cherish your loved ones, and tell them how much they mean to you because you won't have the chance to say goodbye to them when they leave you for good. And even though someone doesn't say goodbye to you or vice versa, it doesn't mean everything that happened before didn't matter, it did, it's just a matter of being able to "hear" the silent goodbyes...

Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted

Ratings: 7.5/10

Film Class: B+

Genre: Animated Comedy, Family

When they announced Madagascar 3 was coming out, I was thinking to myself... not again. The first of its series was good, but I didn't like 2. And now 3? I thought the novelty would have died, just like the Ice Age series, and true enough, it was a little too cliché at the start. 

However, it accomplished what few animations did before (can't think of any at the top my head though, perhaps the first?)... it got better and better as the story progresses. The opening scene was a fast-paced introduction of the "old gang" of animals... the lion, the zebra, the giraffe, the hippo, the lemur and his right hand man, the penguins and the monkeys. 

There's no hidden Master Yoda in an old woman this time round, but there is a superbly nimble and resourceful, animal hunter, Captain Chantel DuBois. She deserves to be mentioned because she's a force to be reckoned with as she's the ultimate animated Homo Sapien villain you'll ever be acquainted with... opps.. perhaps I'm overdoing it a little. 

*spoilers ahead* I love the new animal additions, and when the new characters from the circus were introduced, they added color to the dulling characters. After which, it was a spectacle of eye-feasting visuals when they finally pulled off a successful circus performance. I'm sure the team behind the movie felt the same way as I did, and was glad they finally decided to end off the franchise with this final sequel (I'm assuming this) by making scene references to the the earlier movies. 

ParaNorman

Ratings: 7.1/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Animated Comedy

A young boy able to see the supernatural is outcast and misunderstood by those around him, including his family. Entrusted with a new duty to save his town from a centuries-old curse, he must overcome odds and situations that put his life in danger, risking it all to save the townspeople who never appreciated him... 

An interesting take on the supernatural, animation style, and I liked how they pun-ned the title. The jokes are quite fresh, but none too overwhelmingly memorable. There isn't much of a climax in this one, which makes it rather forgettable. 

ParaNorman kinda feels too kiddish for me, the witch wasn't that scary, and the zombies were just "cartoon" (daft). Other than spirits, zombies and a witch, I thought I would see other supernatural beings, but that's basically the end of the list. Even the ending wasn't impressive, leaving me pretty unsatisfied. Perhaps I would be better off betting my chips on Hotel Transylvania? Or not? (TBC)

Ted

Ratings: 7.8/10

Film Class: B+

Genre: Comedy

Ted reminded me of bad taste bears, those explicit bear figurines manufactured in UK/Europe. Brought to you by the creator of the animated sitcom Family Guy, I'm sure the type of humor you see in Family Guy is the same over here, or vice versa since I haven't caught a single episode of the sitcom. Ie. crude adult-themed humor. While I expected senseless "vulgar" humor, it proved otherwise. Ted was really a movie consisting of short snippets of in-your-face adult humor, somewhat like spongebob square pants but more explicit. And there's a nice story theme behind it - what bromance is all about.

Ted (voiced by the creator/director himself) comes to life after his owner, John Bennett (Mark Wahlberg) made a wish on Xmas day for a lifelong buddy, and had stayed as such for a long long time, until the love of John's life (Mila Kunis) comes into the picture. 

How they make Ted so life-like is remarkable, and Mark Wahlberg's consistently monotonal conversations with Ted fit just right... adding cold sarcasm to the convincing script between a grown-up kid and his talking teddy bear. There were several laugh out loud moments, and sitting through a stand-up comedy, it doesn't give you time to think about what you just laughed... it just moved on to the next pump line, and the next, and the next. In a way, that also made the scene progressions less smooth (cut out instead of fade out shots), but that didn't bother me. 

I liked this movie, especially with the holiday season around the corner, it brought back the little magical feeling of Xmas. Why it was released in September beats me, but it sure is a feel good, light-hearted, rather touching, gonna-make-your-day kinda holiday movie for the open-minded family. 

The Lucky One

Ratings: 8.1/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Romantic

While many loved the movie The Notebook by Nicholas Spark (same author for The Lucky One), I actually prefer this film. 

It was sweet, romantic and had a "best case scenario" ending, everything I had hoped for to be in a romantic movie. Both leads were stunning, Zac Efron, needs no introduction, and Taylor Schilling was drop dead gorgeous. The chemistry was realistic and most of the credit of this movie's success surely goes to Zac Efron. 

Zac Efron is a marine who manages to escape death because he went to pick up a photo of a lady (Taylor Schilling) when he was on a mission in Iraq. Unknowing to him, the spot where he stood was bombed, and ever since that day, he believed that the lady was his guardian angel. [the synopsis is shown in the trailer]

After finally coming out of the army, he manages to find her, but was unable to tell her the truth behind their meeting. Taking up a job at her training centre for dogs, the both of them gradually develops feelings for each other, but obstacles such a possessive ex-husband and "the truth" keeps them at bay. 

Zac excelled in portraying a rather emotionless and uptight person, since he spent a good deal of his life at war, at the same time displaying jaw dropping magnanimosity and character. While it was weird to see a younger guy getting intimate with an older woman on screen (they looked rather mismatched in terms of age), they were both such eye candies it didn't really matter. And in a way, it made sense since it would be too "ideal" for him to pick up a picture of a nice looking younger girl. There are things in life not within our control, and when love comes into the picture, there's definitely no boundaries. Love just happens... 

I liked how "real" the movie felt, the cast, the story, the development and the soundtrack. I'm suddenly a Nicholas Spark fan now...

Snow White and the Huntsman

Ratings: 7.3/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Dark Fairytale

The "darkness" about this film is reminiscence of Alice in Wonderland (2010, the one by Tim Burton) and The Brothers Grimm. I watched Mirror Mirror way back, and these 2 movies came out around the same time. 

Mirror Mirror was light-hearted, but all in all quite crappy. I prefer this "version" of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, somehow there's more class to it. Snow White was more of a warrior, the seven dwarfs weren't so merrily perfect, and the Prince's charm wasn't that magical. 

The essence of the fairytale was all there, incorporated with dark elements and bits of twists here and there. Evil stepmother, more evil than in the books, black magic, darker than in the books, Prince Charming, even more charming with his spot on bullseye-shots, and the seven dwarfs, more of warriors than merry men. The only new addition, the variable is the Huntsman, initially recruited by the Evil Queen to hunt Snow White down, but eventually turned guardian for the Princess. 

I absolutely loved the cast in this film, be it good or bad, and though I'm not a fan of Kristen Stewart, she made a "pretty" "fair" kick-ass Snow White worth rooting for. Impressive graphics and costumes. The ending, though not fairytale romantic, was a good closure to this classic tale.

Brave

Ratings: 6.5/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Animated Action

Had a high expectation of a Pixar film, and like most legacies, there's bound to be a couple of hiccups. Brave ranks as one of the bottom Pixar films. I didn't like the strong Scottish accent and I thought the storyline didn't have much link to the movie title. There's really nothing "Brave" about the cast or their actions. 

Princess Merida is the only heir to her kingdom, and her parents want her to get married (to one of the sons from the other kingdoms). However, she wants freedom to make her own path in life, and made  a pact with a witch. And the impulsive Princess soon realises the mistake she had done and must undo it before the next sunrise... 

Merida's unkempt orange hair felt like her test tube experiment went wrong, blew up and couldn't be bothered to comb her hair after that. The way she so impulsively made a pact with a witch she had never met and how unrepentant she initially was really got on my nerves. 

Perhaps one of the main reasons of me not liking the movie is because I simply didn't like the lead actress. Even at the end, I still didn't feel like I wanna be cheering her on. 

The saving grace of the movie was the last scene, which was quite touching and forced my eyes to well up a bit... possibly of all the built up dissatisfied sentiments I had during my viewing. There was a "cuteness" factor as well, reminiscence of Goldilocks. 

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the next Pixar film is going to do justice to it's "legacy", if not I'll just say "Goodbye Pixar, Heelllooo.... Dreamworks!"

The Darkest Hour

Ratings: 6.8./10

Film Class: B

Genre: Mystery Suspense

I enjoyed The Darkest Hour, probably because I watched it back to back after Iron Sky. Comparing the 2, it was like Heaven and Earth. The storyline of this movie was more "galactic" than the latter. 

The opening scene gathered my fleeting attention and kept me on the edge of my seat till the very end. Two pairs of BFFs come together in Moscow when an alien invasion unexpectedly "floats" to Earth. What makes the aliens so frightening is that they're invisible, and they vaporise humans in an instance. 

The group slowly expands, as they gather more survivors together, and they try to hang on to the hope of survival even though the aliens are hot on their pursuit... 

The plot, the concept of the aliens are original, and the suspense felt real (thanks to the cast, even though they're not critically acclaimed actors and actresses). What I really liked about it was the setting. While there are backgrounds which were clearly CG-ed (it's not a high budget movie), the Moscow setting felt authentic. 

The Achilles heel of the aliens was also quite ingenious, even though the mode of offence and the weaponry felt a little cheesy. It made the cast look ridiculous, yet effective. 

Perhaps the greatest flaw of this movie was how the different groups of survivors were able to reach an "Eureka" moment that quickly. *spoilers ahead* One other was the ending, the separation of the survivors created a big question mark. Still, the plot was unpredictable at times and the overall feel I got after everything was that this is a pretty interesting and decent alien invasion movie. Didn't catch this in 3D, but I'm not that curious to find out because I'm already very much contented on a 2D viewing. 

Iron Sky

Ratings: 4.0/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Spoof Action Comedy

I kinda hated myself for sitting through this even though I knew I had it coming. Just because more than 10% of the film's funding comes from fans doesn't make Iron Sky any special, or different from many other flop movies. 

The plot was detrimental to my intellect. It was so insanely crappy I couldn't even force myself to laugh. The saving grace of it was the lead actress, an absolute eye candy... and the only thing which kept me going... 

The Nazis set up a moon base, and is compromised when the Americans discovered its existence. Actually, America sent 2 astronauts to the moon, only one survived but he was unable to notify the rest of America. Thankfully, with the help of his wits and a little "white truth", he was able to return back to Earth with the Nazi troops, headed by a villainous Captain in Command, Klaus Adler. Klaus Adler wanted to take over planet Earth, but things didn't turn out as planned, as a running Presidential candidate also has a devious plan in mind. 

Well, that's Iron Sky in a nutshell. 

It doesn't sound that bad does it? Let's just say it's similar to spoof movies like Scary Movie and Superhero Movie, which it is. The lines, the plot, the development, the humor, everything was so awful that I couldn't even believe anyone would bother making a movie like this.  

Looper

Ratings: 7.4/10

Film Class: B+

Genre: Sci-Fi Action Thriller

Set in a futuristic world where time travel exists, a dangerous mob sends future enemies back to the past where they would be killed by executioners called loopers. Looper is the name of the so-called employed executioners or killers, but there's more to the title than meets the eye. Time travel in itself is like a loop, and these loopers are supposed to close the loop. Things get interesting when Joe, the lead star in this film closes a loop that he never had coming... 

As with other time travelling movies, there's always loop-holes in them. The "best" time travelling movie I know till date that was the most logical was probably The Time Traveller's Wife. The first dialogue scene between Jeff Daniels (the mafia boss, alias "Rainmaker") and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Joe) featured an uncanny young Bruce Willis. Not sure if it was CG-ed but Joseph Gordon's side-view of his face was long and "line-ny", similar to that of Bruce Willis. 

As for Emily Blunt, she kinda reminded me of Charlize Theron in the movie Monster, ie. unflattering. As for Jeff Daniels, he sure didn't have the menacing look as the ultimate villain. There's sort of a cameo by Piper Perabo (best known for her role in Coyote Ugly) which was rather refreshing. 

*spoilers ahead* There wasn't much chemistry between the 2, and it was quite puzzling to me how Joe couldn't even bother about his future self. Who in the right mind would want to kill his/her future self? Even so, Joe didn't even bother to ask about his future self about his.. future! 

The younger Joe was portrayed as a self-centered, reckless, irrational young chap, and the older Joe, only kept the "irrational" quality of his younger self. In a way, there was some consistency in the subtle depiction of the 2 leads. 

*major major spoilers ahead* Before I end off, it's important to revisit the blaring "loophole" in the film. There's not many occasions that I've warned audience to stop reading unless they've caught the movie and this is one of those times because I'm about to disclose the twist in the ending. Please DO NOT read on if you haven't caught the movie. 

---start of major spoilers---

The twist was indeed unexpected till the very last few seconds of it - when Joe had some "flash-future" about what would have happened if old Joe managed to kill the Rainmaker's mother. That was when I knew what was coming. However, after he finally manages to close the loop, the whole scene at the cornfield should have ceased to exist, or at least the existence of Joe since in the first place, his older self couldn't even have come back to hunt down young Rainmaker. It was a difficult call, even I didn't know how it should turned. Perhaps fade out the entire cornfield setting into a setting showing the Rainmaker and his mum happily having their breakfast in their house? 

However, there was some mention about "alternate" outcomes. Which was possibly why the director allowed such a blaring loophole to remain. Either that, or he ran out of ideas to "close the loopholes" that he conveniently added a few lines about alternate outcomes. So this means what we saw at the last scene, was possibly just a one-sided view of one timeline. 

Either way, the loophole didn't take away the impact of the ending scene. For young Joe to take a bullet to himself, was almost similar to him falling in love with his supposed Chinese wife-to-be... the defining moment which he was "saved". Since young Joe was a self-centered, reckless, irrational young chap, remember? 

----end of major spoilers---

I didn't think it was thhhaatttt gooodddd. But Looper still makes a decent addition to my list of favourite sci-fi movies. 

Sinister

Ratings: 8.1/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Horror Thriller

A crime novelist moves into a new house with his family, where the previous tenants of the house were murdered... with a missing child. Ellison Oswalt (Ethan Hawke) have had his 15 mins of fame with one of his books, Kentucky Blood, and is looking for that big break once again. Finding a box of Super 8 mm film (those old school roll mainly used for home videos) in his attic, he starts watching each roll, which documented the history, and the murders of several families. As he starts to examine and question the motive behind the murders, he gradually sinks into a hell-hole with the supernatural.   

Sinister is possibly one of the scariest horror movies I've watched. Solid suspense build up, decent plot, and great acting. The soundtrack was creepy too, and while most of the sounds (which is one of the most important aspect of horror films) tend to blend in as background sounds, there were at times weird sounds/noises/music which just prepared me for yet another good scare. So much so that at some points, I couldn't figure if they were background sound, or sound intended to add suspense to the scenes.

I possibly jumped up inches (as claimed from my horror movie buddy) from my seat thrice, which is one of the record-breaking moments for me. Usually, I would still be able to keep my cool, but the build up was that intense, coupled with abrupt loud sounds which really made me lose my nerves. To be honest, I was also squinting my eyes at several scenes, hoping to watch as "little" of the screen as I can while supposedly keeping my cool. 

It has the usual clichés, such as scary images on reflective surfaces, overrated sudden sounds to scare you, and before that, everything goes silent, scary looking children and dim lighting. What I wasn't too happy about was that most of the scenes were actually almost completely dark, 3/4 of the screen was just pitch black. Created too much "unnecessary" tension (horror fans won't complain) that something could be lurking in those parts of the screen. Somehow, the lead actor, Ethan Hawke, seemed to have excellent night vision. Also, the scary images & apparitions looked too CG for my liking. 

But other than that, everything else was near awesome. Sinister lies true to its literally meaning, and it's a refreshing mix of graphic horror and scary horror. Graphic horror for movies like Saw and Texas Chainsaw Massacre, scary horror for movies like Paranormal Activity and Insidious (both of which I've yet to catch) - a mix of sadistic horror and ghost horror. 

*major major spoilers ahead* While it's true that there are many murder-like horror movies out there, none is able to meet that balance... it's usually skewed towards the supernatural side. Sinister, however is different in the sense that it initially started out as a murder solving mystery, with hints of the supernatural but gradually evolved into pure supernatural horror madness... and finally falling back to the disturbing horror closure. 

I was almost certain I saw subtle images of the boogie-man on a couple of reflective surfaces which the camera quickly spanned past. Not sure if it was my imagination or that it was intended by the director. One scene was the one where Ethan Hawke and his wife were having a talk along the corridor with a brightly lit white curtained glass door in the background. Another was... I shudder to think about it but was sure there was another scene. Only managed, though I honestly didn't want to, to catch 2 such scenes. 

The first scary screen was his son creeping out of a cardboard box backwards, a scene totally absurd, yet is sure to stick... somewhat like the Exorcist. Thankfully, the fact that "he" was human made it less haunting. And this could possibly be one of the director's "trademark filming", like how director Quentin Tarantino likes to have scenes of feet and soundtrack of his previous movies. Well, the director, Scott Derrickson is the director of The Exorcist of Emily Rose afterall...

The suspense was so intense throughout the movie, I was impatiently waiting (hoping actually) for "lull" moments where Ethan Hawke would have a long (not long enough) dialogue with the other cast, such as a helpful policeman, and an occult investigator. There was also a "lull" moment where he argued with his wife, but that itself was a powerful scene. It put across some insightful priorities any family man should have. The scenes with the policeman and the occult investigator added some light-hearted humor to the perpetually tense mood. 

The problem with too-much-CG apparitions is that during prolonged scenes of them, it just feels more ridiculously unreal (which the ending scene was).

The ending was quick, just like the murders, which cut to the chase. I thought there could have been more build up back there. 

Sinister is a must see for horror fans out there, and for those who can stomach such scenes. For the faint hearted and those who easily have nightmares, I recommend you stay away from this film.  

Taken 2

Ratings: 7.7/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Action Thriller

Retired CIA agent, Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) must once again save his family from the syndicate who kidnapped his daughter back in part 1. Now, gathering more men to hunt Liam Neeson down, and having the advantage of first strike, the father of the deceased lead kidnapper badly wants his revenge...  

*spoilers ahead* The opening scene was real intimidating, and for a moment there, thought Liam Neeson might actually lose this fight. But thank god, writer Luc Besson sure knows how to keep his fans happy. However, this time round, he's having a tougher fight because he's a step behind. For those of you who aren't acquainted with his character, fret not, regardless of the odds, he's always going to make the bad guys pay... 

*major spoilers ahead* This sequel is very different from the first. There's more "story" to it, and less explosive action. You could literally count them with 3 fingers (3 grenades). There's a stronger character feel and all the main characters were given a good amount of screen time, unlike the first where the movie was totally owned by Liam Neeson. 

His daughter, Maggie Grace, even though I can't stand her unconvincing acting, brought a new dimension to the plot as his unexpected "sidekick". Afterall, every hero needs a sidekick, eventually. The ingenuity of how he got his daughter to locate his whereabouts was super cool and super original. Though I didn't really rationalise if it even made sense, I'm sure most of you will feel the same way. The showdown between the head villain and Liam Neeson was a little disappointing, but was still a scene worth remembering. 

I hate to compare this with Part 1, but if you're wondering, I prefer the first because he was more invincible then. Less fast paced for Taken 2, but more brains exerted for Liam Neeson. There's in-the-movie talk about yet another possible sequel, but don't bother waiting for any after-credits scene because there're non. I sure hope the franchise stops here, the way I see it, the only possible direction to make it different is to down play Liam Neeson again, for him to suffer/tortured before rising up again. And that's not something I wanna see from my live action hero.

Something worth mentioning, not sure if it was intended, is that in Taken 1, his daughter was "taken". But in this film, Taken 2, him and his wife were "taken". I find it coincidentally apt that "2 were taken". So does that mean if ever a 3 were to come up, all 3 would be taken? I can only wonder for now...

The Cabin in the Woods

Ratings: 6.8/10

Film Class: B+

Genre: Horror Suspense

Despite the raving reviews about the ingenuity of the plot, this movie didn't wow me. It irritated me initially, because I've always hated "cheap scares" and The Cabin in the Woods uses it all the time. No suspense build up, just pure sudden loud sounds and abrupt visual pop-ups. Especially the introduction of the title, that was way unnecessary... 

*major spoilers ahead* The plot, is indeed quite unique and original, but felt like a remake of a video game. A group of friends stay over at a remote cabin, supposedly bought over by one of the leads' cousin, only to find themselves haunted by the supernatural. Unknowing to them, the chain of events is orchestrated by a group of observers. 

The story build up is fast paced, and the "lucky" folks didn't have to stay tortured for long. They get wiped out fast, probably a little too fast for my liking. The cabin isn't the main scene, the scene is what happens after... the real motive behind the chain of events. 

The plot spirals into the realm of the bizarre when they voluntarily walk into their own graves, pun intended. You'll have to watch the movie to understand what I mean. After that, you'll be led into a whole new world of your greatest fears, which you'll either love, or hate. 

It's an interesting one this is, but it didn't shock me of my senses. Who knows, given a little more time, I might actually grow to like it. But right now, I'll say the overall film felt rather cheesy for me. 

Men In Black III

Ratings: 7.0/10
Film Class: A
Genre: Action Comedy

Men In Black are back again, this time, Tommy Lee Jones, as Agent K has lesser screen time because one of his nemesis alien broke out of prison, and went back in time to assassinate him. It's up to Will Smith, Agent J to save the day. 

This sequel feels different. Even though there's continuity in the storyline, the scripting wasn't like the first 2. It has a more serious tone to it, and the lines aren't as cheesily funny. Doing a check on it, it seems they brought a new writer on board, even though one of the freelance writers have all along been with Men In Black since the start... just a change of partners. 

It makes a good stand alone movie, most of the "forgotten" aspects being explained, except for the talking bulldog. The last sequel came out in 2002, and that's a really long decade ago, so I have no idea how "he" died, assuming he did because there's no reason not to feature him in the 3rd. Unlike Toy Story or most other animated sequels, since there's lotsa animations in this, most of the nostalgic aliens are no longer featured in this episode. 

*spoilers ahead* No dancing roaches, no talking bulldog, no regenerating head alien but we have a 5th dimensional being able to look into the future. He's awesomely cool, and thanks to him, good will inevitably triumph over evil once again. 

There's a mystery to the plot this time round, with a rather heartwarming ending. Josh Brolin as the younger Agent K just seems off to me, since he doesn't look any much younger than Tommy Lee Jones. But it makes sense, since the time travel wasn't too far back, and Josh Brolin did good his role. I liked the acting of the villain as well, Boris the animal, who's a badass creepy-crawly alien with the smarts. 

Men In Black III is less funny compared to its sequel, but feels more intellectual. There's more story, more character feel, but it doesn't feel refreshing anymore. Give and take, it's still a good movie overall. 

Kaiji 2 The Ultimate Gambler

Ratings: 7.0/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Suspense Drama

After months and months of waiting, I've finally managed to watch my highly anticipated Kaiji 2. Kaiji 1 really grew on me. It's not super intellectual, but I love seeing how an underdog average guy outsmarts and defeats a scheming evil empire.

Kaiji 2 still didn't portray the lead star, "Kira from Death Note", as a cool and zai character but still as the whimpy, impulsive, gambling addict. What makes him different from everyone else who was in debt is undying determination to save himself and others. 

After surviving the death-defying game from Kaiji 1, Kaiji finds himself back in debt and ends up in the "underground". The "underground" is a prison where an evil empire puts its debtors to work as slaves. How Kaiji ended up in the "underground" again is not explained, and I find it too coincidentally ridiculous that he would go back to his old habits of gambling even though he knows how inhumane the "prisoners" are treated in the hell hole. 

The storyline is fine, as long as you don't examine it too much. Cos frankly, I don't think it makes much sense, about Kaiji ending up in the "underground" again and how he's so determined to save his "friends" from that place. It was implied many times throughout the movie that the reason why he was able to win the game from part 1 was cos of his determination to live. Yet, ironically, he chooses addiction over life. Guess he didn't really learn from his mistakes after all... only to set out on yet another seemingly impossible mission. 

He's given a 14 day free pass to roam the streets, after outsmarting the "underground" guards who had been conning the inmates and winning cash to buy him temporary freedom. On the surface, he must find a way to multiple whatever cash he has into millions, 20 million to be exact, so that he can clear himself and his so-called "friends" from debt. 

An opportunity is given, when he gets ear about the "swamp", a pachinko machine which gives out beastly returns. One problem, the machine is in a casino owned by the evil empire... and it's rigged to be unbeatable. 

I've never played pachinko, and though I know it's a popular game in Japan, I have no "feelings" for it. So when 1/4 of the movie is about Kaiji with his group of confederates sitting in front of a giant pachinko machine and slotting cards in exchange for small brass balls which rolls from the top and having to end up at a final hole in order to win, it didn't hymn well with me. 

Though I thought the ultimate game wasn't as interesting as the previous "E-card" game from Kaiji 1, I really loved the take-home message. Even though the movie's more than 2 hours long, it didn't feel that draggy. It was fairly fast paced throughout but the main difference between this sequel and it's predecessor, is that for Kaiji 1, I was cheering him on, but for Kaiji 2, I was watching it more for the challenges/games because we all know how it's ultimately going to end...

Headhunters

Ratings: 6.6/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Thriller

Roger is a successful headhunter who also moonlights as an art burglar. To maintain his extravagant life with his beautiful wife, he breaks into houses and steal valuable art pieces from the people he comes across, using his job as a disguise. However, things get complicated when he realises he's been baited to break into what he thought was his biggest and final heist. 

I was surprised to find out that Nikolaj Coster-Waldau also acted in this film, and if you're wondering who that is, he starred as Jaime Lannister in "The Game of Thrones". And if you're still wondering who he is, just ignore what I just said because I also only know him from "The Game of Thrones". 

Headhunters is a Norwegian film, and it reminded me of another movie, "Open your Eyes", starring Penelope Cruz. Open your Eyes is a spanish movie which blew me away with the sudden change of mood when the plot spiralled out of control. This, however, wasn't that insanely twisted. Still, it's not what it seems. As the plot progresses, the film gets darker and darker... till the point that it gets quite disturbing. 

There's no one to really cheer for, because the villain's (Nikolaj) more charismatic than the protagonist, Roger. No doubt there were suspense along the way, but at some point, I started to lose interest and everything just went downhill for me. It didn't pack a kudos killer ending, and though it opened cool, it ended flat.

The Watch

Ratings: 5.5/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Comedy

Evan (Ben Stiller) is a nice guy, a nice boss living in a nice town. Everything changes when his employee was murdered, prompting him to start a neighbourhood watch to nab the killer. However, things isn't as what it seems, because the murderer happens to be extra-terrestrial. 

Can Evan and his watch of brothers stop the impending alien invasion? You won't have to sit through it to know the answer. 

The Watch is a predictable, crude and pretty lame movie. The storyline's predictable, the humor's crude, and there's too many loopholes, even fingerholes (reference to the movie) in it. The acting was horrendous, with the exception of the 4 leads, but it just felt like a low class film. The director obviously couldn't be bothered with the plot and the script writers obviously just wanted someone to make a verbally-pornographic-alien movie.  

The Achilles heel of the aliens really smashed it for me, it was so off and ridiculously crappy that I couldn't even be bothered to talk about it with my fiancée after the movie. The opening was quite engaging, but everything else went downhill after. I just wonder to myself, are directors that free and rich in US to find decent actors to star in crappy movies? That's one way to screw the reputation of established actors... (pardon the language, but if you're gonna watch it, you better get used to it)

The Expendables 2

Ratings: 8.8/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Action

Comparing The Expendables to my early post on The Raid: Redemption, the former makes the latter look real bad. I understand it's not a fair comparison, but Hollywood is truly Hollywood, the leading district for film makings. 

The Expendables is an elite group of mercenaries who would normally take up assignments for money. However, they find themselves fighting for a cause when faced with an adversary who made the mistake of pissing them off.

The Expendables 2 pack more action, more one-liner (maybe more) jokes, and more coolness than most other action films. The reason is simple... on which what sells this movie... the classic "action heroes" during my younger years. Terminator, Rambo, Universal Soldier, Die Hard and Transporter all features 1 kick-ass action "hero", each so successful at least trilogies were made, and not surprisingly, they're all, yes ALL in this one freaking show. 

Like how Jason Maraz would say it, 50, no, 1,000 ounce of awesomeness. *major spoilers ahead* It's a pity we didn't see much of Jet Li in this sequel, but the increased screen time for Bruce Willis, Arnold and Chuck Norris was more than what I had wished for. Most characters had their own screentime/heroic/comedy moments. I loved the new addition to the team, the sniper kid. By kid I don't mean a young boy, but that's what they call him. 

However, I wasn't too fond of the choice of the female lead because there was nothing real cool about her. Jean-Claude Van Damme's the evil villain this time round, even though the word "villain" in itself means "evil" but another "evil" is necessary to show how bad he is. Still, he's not a character that one can truly loathe because come on, we all know him to be the heroic Universal Soldier after all. 

I thought Jason Statham's 5-minute scene of knife throwing sucked the coolness off everything else. Imagine him being dressed in a priest's cloak, pulling down his hood and throwing knives at high speed at his enemies. One shot, er.. one pierce one kill. Accuracy, speed, lotsa stabbing, blood splattering and cool poses. That was easily one of the most awesome knife fighting scenes I've seen. 

Chuck Norris's appearance was the best comic moment, whopped with Dolph Lundgren's constant eccentric humor, I was laughing, wide-eyed gasping and cheering for all the characters in this fun-filled  entertaining classic. It's a classic in the making, in the present age with all the classics in it. 

And as one of the characters mention, "They should belong in the museum", I thought it was apt. Not because they were old and soon to be forgotten, but because they were all legendary and will always be remembered. 

The Expendables, ironically, will never be expendable. I've mixed feelings about a 3rd, if there ever will be one. But The Expendables 2 sure tops my list of Coolest movies. Sometimes it's not just the action, but with the characters and the humor which makes the whole deal... 

The Raid: Redemption

Ratings: 7.2/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Action

The Raid: Redemption is "over-raided". I expected non-stop mindless action but what I got was close to 40% storyline. It didn't deliver the punch I needed to keep me at the edge of my bed during a late Saturday night... 

I had wanted so much to catch this that I didn't even hesitate 2 seconds when it came out in DVD, even though the price was a whopping $24.90. On the other hand, I had also wanted to watch a Japanese movie, Kaiji 2 for so long... yet was able to resist the temptation of throwing the same price for it. I went back to my local video shop 5 times hoping for Kaiji 2's price to lower, but 2 seconds was all it took for me to grab this DVD. Man, I've really gotta repent and redeem myself... 

A rookie member of the special squad is thrown into a covert mission to extract the notoriously ruthless crime lord from a 15-story apartment block. Everything was going well until the 5th floor, where their presence was spotted and when the entire building was locked down. Groups of gangsters then start appearing from all over to hunt down the outnumbered special squad... 

Where's the redemption in this movie? There's a possibility that it refers to one important character (not the lead) but on 2nd thought, it wasn't redemption it was brrooothherrlly opps* *major spoilers ahead*, it was brotherly love instead. 

The crime lord is protected by 2 of his closest henchmen, 1's a smartie, the other a "mad dog". And 1 of them happens to be the brother of the rookie member. 15-story building... but does that mean 15 storeys of hardass action on each floor?  

Nope, after the 5th storey, I didn't even know which floor they were on most of the time. All I know is that the special squad was hunted down like little lambs. One by one they got wiped out... and at first I didn't quite recognise the lead. But it became obvious after his first one-man show on one of the floors. 

The crime lord was a disappointment, to be wiped out so quickly without a good fight... and the "mad dog" stole everyone's limelight, including the 2 leads'. There were guns, knives and bare knuckles, all in moderation. Nothing too explosive, nothing too cut-throat, nothing too hard-hitting. Whoever tells you this is one of the best action films in decades has not seen a true action-packed film yet... 

John Carter

Ratings: 8.2/10
Film Class: B+
Genre: Action

John Carter is a civil war hero who has lost his purpose in life after the death of his wife. Roaming around from place to place, he gets himself into trouble and ends up being locked up for the night. He manages to escape, using his wits and never-say die attitude, only to come across an ancient cave which is able to transport an individual from Earth to planet Mars. 

There, John Carter faces massively tall barbarian-like Martians and is further implicated in a supernatural war between the races/groups in Mars. It is there that he finds himself again, and his new purpose in life...

The far-fetched fantasty-like storyline might turn off many supposedly more mature audience, but rest assure, this movie is a hidden gem. I would think it falls under the sci-fi genre, but the sci-fi films I know are always serious and thought-provoking. "John Carter" is not a serious movie, nor is it abstract in any sense, but it sure is in its class of its own.

Disney has once again showed the world that its more than capable of producing "adult quality" movies by venturing out of its usual teenage films. 

It was downright entertaining and the story was simple, yet engaging. *spoilers ahead* The ending was the deal breaker for me, with the twist I never saw coming. It packs good action, good laughs and good casts, and it's just simple maths, 3 "good"s make it "great". 

The Bourne Legacy

Ratings: 7.7/10
Film Class: B+
Genre: Action

The Bourne Legacy felt more like an "action movie" than an "action-packed movie". It's not a bad thing, especially for those who hated the action scenes of Bourne Ultimatum (part 3) which were shaky and fleeting... most of the time I recalled that I couldn't figure out what or where the action scenes were about amidst all that "flashing".

There's storyline, there's build-up, there's action, there's another Jason Bourne... Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner). Though there were flashbacks of the story of Bourne, and several "cut and paste" scenes from the Trilogy, it would be better for its audience to watch/re-watch the previous few films before catching this one so that you'll be able to better piece the story together, and hence appreciate it more. 

There were lots which I had forgotten, and though my much-awaited meetup between the 2 leads (Matt Damon and Jeremy Renner) was not fulfilled, this sequel (or rather mi-quel? since the story is supposed to be happening concurrently with the first 3 films) left me wanting more yet again. I was sitting throughout the credits, hoping to catch a glimpse of any possible hints of a sequel, but was disappointed that there wasn't any. 

The ending was a little abrupt... the villians weren't that many and there weren't many fist-fights this time round. Recalled that the first few films always had a few professional "zai" assasins to hunt down Bourne... but there was only 1 for The Bourne Legacy. Like I said before, since it's the introduction of a new character, the focus was more on the story and his development. 

Unlike the rest, I felt this film was more emotionally intense. There were a lot of unseen buildup of suspense... similar to when you watch a horror movie, because you never know when Aaron Cross will get "crossed". 

*Spoilers ahead* There was a scene, reminiscence of a mass shooting, in the lab where Rachel Weisz was working at which was extremely disturbing. However, it wasn't really explained only by a few assumptions about the chemicals that the lab was working on in affecting the mad shooter's sanity. 

The last bike-chase action scene was one of the best I've seen, even though I was a little puzzled why Aaron Cross couldn't hold a gun in one hand and ride with the other hand... so that he was able to shoot down his adversary, considering he was so pro. But when I was told that most of the stuns in the movie was done by Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz... I decided not to "fault" the movie for such a trivial matter. 

The Bourne Legacy obviously lives on with this 4th instalment, and I really hope I won't have to wait another 5 years for the next sequel to be up. 

The Three Stooges

Ratings: 6.8/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Slapstick Comedy

The Three Stooges is about 3 obnoxious orphan kids, Moe, Larry and Curly who grew up in the Sisters of Mercy Orphanage. In time to come, the orphanage was forced to close down, unless they were able to raise $830,000. Hence, begins the quest of the 3 stooges into the "real" world to help raise the funds to save their orphanage. 

The movie is composed of 3 episodes, lasting 92 mins. Think of it as a 3-episode mini series lumped into 1 big movie. I'm sure you know by now that The Three Stooges is a remake of the classic short films back in our Grandpop's days. I'm not a granddad but I've heard of it, though I haven't seen any clips of it. 

The genre falls under Slapstick Comedy, which means you won't have to bring your brains along to catch it. The level of intellect required is on par with Austin Powers and Dude Where's My Car, and the  senseless "violence" was rather unnecessary for that few moments of laughters - it wasn't even that funny. 

However, the movie did give me several (3 parts I think) pretty good laughs, with a rather touching scene at the end of episode 2. Thank God I left my brains at home, and I was kinda prepared for the lame and forceful humor. I'm sure you'll feel ripped off if you caught it in the cinemas, but it's a decent comedy if you're looking to throw away your long list of to-do stuff at work for a good 1.5hrs. 

And before I end off, I must say, the 3 actors were seriously awesome as Moe, Larry and Curly whom I was never acquainted with. Moe reminded me of Dumb and Dumber, a little hint of Jim Carrey, and Larry and Curly were spastically funny as the main supporting characters. 

The Dark Knight Rises

Ratings: 7.6/10
Film Class: A
Genre: Action Drama

Managed to catch the gala première of the final instalment of Christopher Nolan's Batman's series. And the conclusion is... that Christopher Nolan achieved what no other director has ever achieved; the 2nd movie in the series being the best of its lot. Followed by the 3rd (this film), then the 1st (Batman Begins). Normally sequels rarely top its original, but in this case it did.

Batman is forced to surface once again, after being deemed the villain responsible for the death of the supposed hero, Harvey Dent (Two-Face in The Dark Knight), by a greater evil, Bane. In fear of spoiling the plot for you, I shall leave it at that, with spoilers, and major spoilers up ahead. The soundtrack was very catchy, with the chant of a language I didn't understand but was later explained, and the scene of the crumbling field (as seen in the trailers) didn't fail to impress once again. The showdown between Bane and Batman might get you at the edge of your seat, and the ending scene was rather breath-gasping. As for everything else... they were only so-so.

The acting wasn't as good as the first, even though it featured many new faces, such as Anne Hathaway, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Marion Cotillard, 2 of the latter stars being a favourite of the director's, as assumed since they both starred in Christopher Nolan's Inception. The villain, Tom Hardy, couldn't shine as much cos his face was covered all the time and his voice was rather muffled. I had to switch my cat-like hearing senses on to capture his words... which failed most of the time. And the mandarin translation didn't help much either.

*spoilers ahead* What I didn't like about the movie was the progression of the plot, as well as the scenes. The "jumps" in scenes vital in the logic of the film were extremely prevalent and conspicuous, creating loopholes and breaking the flow of the storyline. While the director tie up loose ends, I thought "loopholes" shouldn't be created for the sake of creating them just to fill them up in the end.

*major spoilers ahead* There's a slight twist to the story and the cameo by Liam Neeson was quite refreshing. However, bringing back the "concept" of the "League of Shadows" led by Liam Neeson in the first instalment was a bad move. I had totally no recollection of the the group considering Batman Begins was 7 years ago (2005) and much of this movie's plot revolves around the ideals of Liam Neeson's leadership role. It would have better aided me in connecting the dots if I had re-watched the first, but still, I thought the conclusion would be better off having a more stand-alone plot.

*major major spoilers ahead* I was silently waiting for "Robin" to "appear" and he finally surfaced at the end. Didn't like how Marion Cotillard so abruptly gained the trust of Bruce Wayne to take over his empire and definitely not how the director conveniently skipped the explanation about how Batman survived the explosion at the very end.

The Dark Knight Rises concludes the Batman trilogy just right, literally. I kinda expected more, but I guess it's good enough for me.

Prometheus

Ratings: 8.2/10
Film Class: A
Genre: Sci-Fi Horror

Prometheus: A titan in Greek mythology credited for the creation of man and human's use of fire. The movie title was apt, revolving around a group of futuristic explorers who went on an expedition to a distant planet to uncover the truth behind the beginnings of the human race. *major spoilers ahead* There were also a couple of memorable scenes of "fire" here and there, one of a flame thrower (apt choice of weaponry), and the other of combustive spacecraft material scattered around the dangerously high CO2 (in the context of human) planet. Perhaps it was also indirectly implied that "one (Man) shouldn't play with fire". 

A few days before catching Prometheus, I found out that it was supposedly a prequel to the Aliens quadrilogy. But director Ridley Scott had intended it to be a standalone movie. Frankly, it turned me off a little... wasn't a huge fan. And after imdbing the quadrilogy, only the first Alien movie was directed by him actually. In a way, he was like Prometheus, for he created the Alien species/saga which lived till this very day... at a point the Aliens even battled it out with Predators. He "ended" with a bang this time round as well, even though the movie hinted the possibility of a sequel. 

The opening scene was gloomingly gorgeous! And the CG was state-of-the-art. Even the words "state-of-the-art" sounds so outdated now, in fact the CG was top tier of this era. A word of warning though, the entire movie was dark and solemn, and it's not your typical Sci-Fi thrillers. Yup, Prometheus is closer to being a horror film. You'll probably remain tense throughout and might even jump in your seat  a couple of times (typical of the Aliens quadrilogy).

The storyline was anything but ordinary. It's highly thought-provoking, to the extend that it left me rather irritated trying to connect the dots. I managed to make sense of most parts of it (I think) but there were still bits lost in Planet Alien. 

I believed that humans were accidentally created by early Man, contrary to what the explorers (lovebirds Dr Elizabeth Shaw-Noomi Rapace and Dr Charlie Holloway-Logan Marshall-Green) believed. There was a scene of the lead actress questioning why we were created only to be destroyed. That explains it. And as what the Captain of the ship said in a particular scene, trying to best explain the whole shebang indirectly to the movie's audiences, the creators made a new species in the military base (cave) which would later be revealed to evolve into Aliens, to wipe out human race and to re-populate planet Earth with their own kind. Though ironically, we humans, are derived from them. 

There was a scene of David (Michael Fassbender), a cyborg(?) drugging the drink of the lead explorer (Dr Holloway) which was also rather puzzling. The "purpose" of David was disclosed at the ending scene, but as to why he drugged the drink with a droplet of Alien fluid, which would later grow into worm like creatures, still remains elusively unexplainable. Possibly he was instructed by his maker to "experiment" on modern humans to re-create early humans? Seems so from a scene in the movie, how the lead explorer mutated into "Dr Hyde". David remains a mysterious character till the very end, he (or it) seems to know everything and on how to stay out of danger (maybe not so towards the end), which was very ???????? 

The hologram of the early humans being decapitated in the cave at the start had a line where Dr Shaw said that his death was dated 2,000 years ago. Well, the first homo sapiens were here on planet Earth way before that, which explained chronologically that the opening sequence showed the creation of Man, and that everything else, the cave, the Aliens, all came after that. Which is why our creators wanted to wipe us out because they didn't even know Man came from them in the first place. 

Possibly, there were a group of Early man explorers who went out in the universe to find life. Then one came across planet Earth, drank something which turned out to be poison (don't ask me why) and scattered his DNA on Earth. Then a few thousand years later, while planet Earth started to have a human lifeform, Early man decided to inhabit another Planet which could sustain life because their planet was in danger by God knows what, created a military weapon, Aliens which they would unleash  onto Earth to destroy any lifeforms, in this case Human/Man. 

It's just a case of "mistaken" identity, unintended creations and the struggle for survival. And we humans have that "itch" of curiosity which we want to scratch so bad with undesirable consequences. That's what this movie is all about. Either that, or I'm just thinking too much. 

Whichever it is, Prometheus still makes a great movie to watch with your peers and loved ones. It's quite gory and not for the squeamish, but the experience of being transported to an Alien planet makes everything else bearable.

The Avengers

Ratings: 8.0/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Action Drama

I kept telling myself, don't expect too much... don't expect too much... Because I was fearful of being let down. Given the flattering reviews, the much awaited hype, and it's overnight exemplary ratings on imdb, I thought that regardless of my expectations, the movie would nail a spot in my Top Movie List. 

It was the first movie I had to make a week advance booking but honestly thought there was nothing fantastic about it. Of course there were the "usual" awesome CG and cool superheroes anyone would love to see come together to fight against a common enemy. Not 1, not 2, but 6 of them tag teaming, bickering and b**** smacking the hell out of Loki, a powerful God-like being from the realm of Asgard. Asgard is another world where the "Gods", like Odin and Thor lives. So having Thor being one of the 6 superheroes fighting against is a little puzzling. I mean shouldn't they be on the same level? 

Perhaps the scheming intellect of Loki may exceed Thor's, but Iron Man's intellect surely matches Loki's. So in essence, Thor + Iron Man will give Loki more than just a fair fight. Before I start, opps already did, continue complaining about the plot, perhaps it's better I give a brief synopsis. 

Nick Fury, who leads a special organisation by the name of S.H.I.E.L.D, sets out to recruit superheroes to fight against a being from another realm, whom by know you already know as Loki because he had stolen a very powerful energy source and had "converted" several of Nick Fury's elite team to be on his side. The initial "Avengers" project was scrapped, from the end credit scenes of the other superhero movies like Iron Man, Captain America and Thor, but was re-initiated in this movie because of the current situation. 

*Major spoilers ahead* Nick Fury has no idea what Loki has planned, but yet decided to gather this "Avengers" team again to retrieve the energy source. Also, Thor wasn't part of the "plan", he just happened to be involved because his brother Loki is trying to mess up the planet of Thor's love interest, Natalie Portman, whom we sadly get to only see a still picture of. The supposed "twist" in Nick Fury's "masterplan" wasn't that much of a climax and seeing how the 6 superheroes hurl semi-humorous lines at each other made the movie rather "degrading". 

The script and plot stole the class of this high awaited Blockbuster movie. It felt, if I must say, rather kiddish. It's true that the "origins" of the superhero movies came from cartoons, but seeing and experiencing how that level was raised by the previous instalments, it was rather disappointing to have sat through a semi-funny, semi-classy, semi-cool, semi-intellectual "all-star" movie. The most disappointing bit of Avengers was how silly-like the ultimate evil villain was. 

Though every superhero was given a fair share of screen time, it acted as a double-edged sword because there wasn't much focus and character engagement was kept at a minimal. That said, there's still a slight focus veered towards Iron Man but I couldn't connect with any of them. 

To sum it up, Hulk was the class clown, Iron Man was the cool nerd, Captain America and Loki were part of a himbo cheerleading squad, Thor was the clueless Viking, Black Widow was the oscar winning actress, Hawkeye was the modern age Legolas, and Nick Fury was the muttering pirate. 

There's no after credit scene, only an early credit one. Unlike the rest of the instalments, you don't have to sit through the entire credits for that few seconds of extra footage. Just have to hang on a bit before the scene of "Thanos" comes up. I blatantly put his name down because if you're not a fan of superheroes, you'll prolly be clueless about who that purple faced guy was at the very end. 

You can find out more from the link:

http://sg.entertainment.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/avengers-spoiler-revealed-final-scene-224135677.html

That said, the link also mentioned that there's this scene about the superheroes sitting at a restaurant eating shawarma (mixed meat dish) at the very end of the credit roll. However, the only scene I saw was the word "MARVEL" splashed across the big screen over a red background. I'm curious to find out why I missed the scene out but probably won't want to sit through another 142 mins just for that. While I'm definitely getting Blue-Ray for this, I'm not going to give The Avengers a second viewing... 

I really hope that the sequel will come back with a vengeance and will prove that combining all 6 superheroes in a single movie would be "neater" instead of spelling "disaster".