Sunday, June 30, 2013

Stoker

Ratings: 7.9/10
Film Class: B
Genre: Suspense Thriller

Stoker is a disturbing, emotionally packed sensuous powerhouse film which beautifully reels its viewers in. It's sick (duh, what do you expect from the director of Oldboy?), thought-provoking, and in a warped sense, elegantly beautiful. Kudos to the director's eye for great cinematography. The camera techniques and style used were refreshing and had a finesse of its own - transition continuity and 360 degrees panning scenes.

After the death of India's father, her charismatic uncle mysterious shows up. Wary yet intrigued by her newly arrived uncle, she gradually uncovers a dark secret which sets into motion a twisted attraction. 

Storyline wise it's predictable, but it's the build up which was applausable. Despite being a dialogue driven movie, the gripping suspense kept my eyes glued to the screen throughout. There were some mildly erotic disturbing scenes which portrayed more depth than what it seemed. The stoic expressions of the 3 main characters, India, her mother and her uncle, created a "Live"-like theatrical arthouse element to the movie, even though it may seem rather unnatural and unrealistic at times. 

*major spoilers ahead* There's some room for your imagination and not everything is laid out as clear cut as the disclosure of the cause of accident which took India's father's life. It's more of a psychological thriller than an erotic thriller and as the title suggests, it's all about India Stoker, and the movie allows its viewers to have a front row seat inside the mind of this mysterious adolescent. 

*warning: major major spoilers ahead* The opening scene started off with a brief and vital introduction to our female protagonist, that she is special in a way that her senses are more "advanced" than others. She's able to hear the softest of things, and is extremely observant to her surroundings. This ability of hers sets the premise of her uncovering things that normally an ordinary person would be oblivious to. 

The scene was unexpectedly revisited at the end, and the seemingly innocent opening scene turned out to be more than meets the eye.. just like India herself.

The movie's main theme is India's sexual awakening, which was ignited by her charming uncle. However, this sexual awakening transcends more than just physical attraction, but a pyschological one. Her fantasies weren't the purest of forms, and it's that one bathroom scene which exposed her true inner psyche. 

Stoker is definitely a movie which will "haunt" the minds of its audience, as did Thirst (Korean vampire movie by the same director) did to me. Somehow, this Korean director has skilfully managed to successfully make every movie experience so pyschologically disturbing that it's tough to forget. Chan-wook Park, I "hate" you, for opening up that "sick awakening" inside of me... Respect. 

Safe Haven


Ratings: 6.2/10
Film Class: C
Genre: Romantic Mystery Drama

I'll be honest with you, I didn't sit through the entire movie with my undivided attention, yet I'm confident my sentiments about the film will ring a familiar echo to most viewers... Safe Haven is more scary than romantic. Despite being adapted from the novel by Nicholas Sparks, who also wrote the classic "The Notebook", it wasn't as romantically engaging.

This is a darker film about a young woman's mysterious dark past which comes back to haunt her as she seeks refuge in a small town and falls in love with a man who had just lost his wife. The pre-ending might even make you jump in your seat, but the ending twist made this movie better than just mediocre. The leads lacked genuine chemistry and felt rather mismatched, maybe cos their actual age difference is a stunning 16 years? Not much character development for the man's son and  the justification for his behavior towards his father. On the flip side, his little girl was such a charm to watch. 

I thought it could be better, on the romance and character development part. But suspense wise, pretty good, and the unexpected twist at the end won it additional brownie points. 

The Man with the Iron Fists

Ratings: 6.5/10
Film Class: B
Genre: Action

This is director RZA's sad excuse to make himself look cool and to satisfy his fantasy of making a true-blue Hollywood Kung Fu movie - the fusion of East meets West, like The Forbidden Kingdom. While the cool part for himself failed, it was to a certain extend, pretty cool. Though I didn't like the soundtrack which came along with the action scenes, I guess that's what draws the line and differentiates between Hollywood and "HongKongwood" Kung Fu films.

*major major spoilers ahead* The characters were unique in their own way, fighting stance way I mean; with Russell Crowe, a western-style gun-man, Rick Yune, the knifes/blade master, Dave Bautisa (WWE Wrestler) with his impenetrable brass-like body, Cung Le with a craw-like cane and fights with his "craws" (bare hands), villainous mastermind Byron Mann with his craw-like weapons whom I initially mistook for the man with the iron fists, Daniel Wu as the stealth assasin who shoots poison darts, Lucy Liu as the disguised master of cut-throat fans and of course, RZA, who is the Man with the Iron Fists. 

Expect a no-brainer, yet entertaining action movie with the different characters battling it out with the newly appointed scheming leader of the Lion Clan, Silver Lion (Byron Mann) who goes around creating chaos, driven by his greed for power and the emperor's gold. 

Having Chia Hui Liu star as an abbot just goes to show the true intentions of the director - to make a Hollywood Kung Fu movie because most of the chinese actors in this film (there's many more apart from those mentioned above) were Kung Fu "legends" during their prime years, or either they were no strangers to the Kung Fu scene in "HongKongWood". 

It's obviously a low budget film with the repetitive settings (in an enclosed room, just that the layout was a bit different) but I was convinced it deserves a "B" for film class because of the diversity of the cast. Despite the cons, its a watchable Kung Fu action-packed film that's 65% badass. 

Monday, June 24, 2013

Cloud Atlas

Ratings: 6.8/10
Film Class: A
Genre: Fantasy Drama

This narrative-style artsy fantasy film spans across 6 main plots, across different eras which are somehow connected. Unlike connect-the-dots movies like Crash and Love Actually, the ending doesn't tie up everything blatantly, it left me rather confused and wondering whether I had wasted 172 mins of my life. I would love to think there is a deeper meaning behind the entire plot, but unlike Youth Without Youth (another brain-haemorrhagic-inducing film), I don't even know where to start thinking from. 

Lemme try to summarise the 6 main plots: there's one on a futuristic tribe, one of song composing, one on an ocean voyage with a twist, one on the uprising of a clone in yet another futuristic world, one on a publisher with his encounters in an old folk's home and one on journalism to uncover a conspiracy. The main themes are love, deceit and beliefs.

There were of course hints here and there, but they're like catching bird droppings (pardon me but I can't think of a better analogy). They're so random, and you'll have to be extremely sharp to catch those hard-to-pronounce, hard-to-register names verbally thrown out by the different characters. It's those names that will give you a better overall picture. But even if you do catch them, there's not much time to think. It's like watching a montage of short clips, the scenes of the 6 main plots kept alternating, contributing to the confusion.

Con(s). Confusing plot, with no proper closure. 

Pros. Great cast, and was interesting to see them being "re-used" in the 6 different settings. Some of the characters were obvious, while there were a handful disclosed during the ending credits which will leave you thinking "No way!" 

The words used during the narration sounded so beautifully poetic, even though there was a whole chunk load of words which I don't understand.

While logic states that 2 pros outwieghs 1 con, the duration of the film magnified the con. I don't think it's that worth your time, unless you're someone who can spare lots of it. 

Friday, June 21, 2013

Man of Steel

Ratings: 7.2/10
Film Class: A- 
Genre: Superhero Action

Is this new remake of Superman as good as the reviews say it is? Not for me. Then again, none of the Superman instalments have yet to create that wow factor for me. I'm a huge huge fan of Marvel and DC superheroes, but despite being the ultimate bestest superhero in the DC kingdom, this remake didn't soar. 

Man of Steel is about the origins of Clarke Kent, an "alien" with a great destiny on Earth... oh wait a minute, why am I describing Superman like no one knows about him? Who the Krypton/Earth doesn't know about possibly the most famous superhero ever created? But do you know who General Zod is? Since I'm a self-proclaimed fan who doesn't buy any superhero comics to read, I can only brag about knowing who this supervillain is from my acquaintance with him in the US series Smallville. 

General Zod is in charge of the military forces on Krypton, but when Krypton was on the verge of destruction, he takes the opportunity to lead a rebellion as their new ruler. However, he and his crew were captured and banished to the Phantom Zone (a prison for villains). But it proves to be a 'blessing' in disguise because the destruction of their planet also freed the banished villains, allowing them to seek for the lost "son".

*major spoilers ahead* Because the villains are from the same planet as Superman, don't expect any kryptonite to be used. In terms of superpowers, they are relatively on par. As for the plot development, it was blockishly hasty and the chemistry between Superman and Louis Lane was unconvincingly rushed. Everything happened too conveniently fast, creating the oxymoron of a smooth rocky plot. 

It was too cool, too fast. The director wasted no time in developing Clarke Kent's character, prepared a few scenes of his background story and how he controlled his abilities like teaser trailers, and went straight to the "exciting" part, the fight between his Zod's crew and him. There was a brief scene of Lana Lang, Clark Kent's first love and one on LuthorCorp though Lex Luthor didn't come on screen. We also get acquainted with the "real" meaning of the "S" symbol on Superman but there was no explanation/background on how or why his father created his outfit as we know it to be. I mean, why the cape? (I was silently hoping for an explanation because his cape created more of a liability [villains could hold his untearable cape and fling him around, which General Zod did] than being practically beneficial.

And why did everyone start calling him Superman? How did that term come about? Well, from the movie, it just did. It wasn't like how people called Batman "Batman", there's no obvious reason or a hint of "Super" behind Superman's costume and humans didn't know how Super he was. Was it the "S" on his costume then? Which we all assumed he got his superhero name from before this film? Guess you won't find out in Man of Steel. 

Action was good, though graphic-wise could have been better. A little fak-ish at parts, especially when he started to fly across different continents. 

*major major spoilers ahead* From what I know, General Zod is supposed to be EVIL, but in this movie, he's more like a villain fighting for a different cause, to save his race at the expense of humans. It reminded me of the villain from Star Trek Into The Darkness, which made it for Star Trek, but broke it for Man of Steel. Director Zack Synder should have tweaked it a little as he did with the fate of Zod (which didn't tally with the comics) and just made General Zod the ultimate hated villain without any rationale for destroying Earth. 

Henry Cavill was too bulky to my liking as Superman and was given only a few lines throughout the movie. Not sure why this was so (possibly because he can't really act?), but it made him feel more distant for the audience to connect to. It was "cute" to see Laurence Fishburn being cast as "Perry White", not sure if the pun was intended and both Laurence Fishburn and Amy Adams didn't look as how I had remembered them to be, if you know what I mean. ;p 

Overall, I did enjoy it, but something was lacking... probably cos' I had hoped for a smoother plot flow. I wouldn't have minded a 3hr-long movie with better pacing instead of a jam-packed action-packed superhero film with massive destruction all over.

Thursday, June 20, 2013

The Grandmaster

Ratings: 5.2/10
Film Class: C
Genre: Action Drama

Set in the era of Ip Man's prime, the film is about the handling over of the prestigous title of "Grandmaster" by Master Gong, who is well respected and reputed in northern China. Arriving in Foshan, southern China, and challenging the masters of the South, they send Ip Man to bring honor to the martial arts of the South.

The defeat of Gong and the crowning of the new Grandmaster ignites a chain of events which acts as the basis of the film's plot.

Being a Donnie Yuen Ip Man fan, I was skeptical about another Ip Man movie being made without the original star... . It's like making another Iron Man sequel without Robert Downey Jr., or Pirates of the Carribean without Johnny Depp. In fact, there were 2 recent Ip Man movies, the other starring Anthony Wong. I gave this a try because of Tony Leung, but it turned out to be as I had expected, a futile attempt at milking the franchise. It was such a letdown, I almost couldn't finish it.

*major spoilers ahead* The opening scene of Ip Man fighting in the rain with a bunch of baddies totally felt like a stand alone scene and added no value to the plot development. Ie. No link. All it did was showcase Ip Man's fighting, and it almost felt like a last minute addition. The director probably only realised that there wasn't enough action scenes after filming the scenes, and so decided to make one more hoping to please his audience.

And is this movie about Ip Man? NO, it wasn't. That's big news for you. Then who's the lead star you might ask? It's Zhang Ziyi, acting as Gong Er, Master Gong's daughter who wants to bring back the honor to her family name. She has to fight Ip Man, fight her evil god-brother Ma San and crosses path with this nationalist patriot, nicknamed "The Razor". Who is "The Razor" and why did I mention his name? He's apparently an undercover covert agent for China when the Japanese took over and while there's a few scenes of him, there's absolutely no link (omg, not again?!?) between his character and that of Ip Man's, an obvious hint that the lead star isn't Ip Man but Gong Er instead. And that one scene of their paths crossing only took a minute or so.

The Grandmaster failed on multiple levels, with the wishy washy scenes accompanied with overly subtle dialogue, the director 's intention to bring artsiness to this movie failed especially for the finale. It was so draggy at the end and watching the tension between the 2 suppressed love birds (Ip Man and Gong Er) was more torturing than sweet. 

To be right smack honest, it was a total waste of my time and I felt sorry for myself for letting curiosity get the better of me...

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

Now You See Me

Ratings: 6.3/10
Film Class: C+
Genre: Mystery Thriller

Now You See Me is about a group of magicians who call themselves the Four Horsemen, who were brought together a year ago by an anonymous individual. Slowly gaining popularity with their Las Vegas show, they climaxed it one night with a bank robbery, by seemingly teleporting a member of their audience into a vault of an international bank to witness the heist. Finally grabbing the attention of the world, the Four Horsemen goes into the next phase of their routine... leading up to that one grand finale beyond anyone's wildest imagination... 

*major spoilers ahead* The plot's main theme is Misdirection, with a capital M, not forgetting the other obvious M, for Magic. Well, that's what makes up the bulk of a magician's modus operandi anyways so no big stunner there. But like any awesome magic trick, the movie packs a killer ending, one with a big twist. However, that one big twist works like a double edged sword - it was so twisted it turned out too far-fetched. It made the whole plot seem like a joke, and ironically, the twist turned out to be the director's greatest misdirection.

It almost felt as if the scriptwriters managed to buy-in the director with that one big twist... but midway directing the movie, director Louis Leterrier realised, "Darn, why didn't I notice that many loopholes in the script, guess I just I'll cover it up by misdirecting my audience with the stunner ending..." Well, it failed, for me. 

On the contrary, it wasn't thhhaaaat bad. There were connections and links here and there, but the killer ending didn't quite make sense in the overall context of the plot. Hmm, guess I'm harping so much on the ending that I'm missing the big picture here (advice I learnt from the movie)... the big stars.

There's a star studded cast, no doubt, with big names like Morgan Freeman, Isla Fisher and Michael Caine, but my absolute favourite turned out to be the one I'm least familiar with, Melanie Laurent (French actress), cos she was such an ethereal eye-candy. Despite the "grandeur" casting, only Jesse Eisenberg (best known for his lead role in The Social Network) delivered what I thought was the most convincing "act". 

I was quite turned off by the CG, looked too plastered on most of the time, and to make matters worst, the cinema I went to had one of the worst muffled sound system a paying member of the public shouldn't have to endure. 

Was never a fan of Mark Ruffalo (still think he can't act) who was the sceptical FBI detective, clueless most of the time and running around like a headless chicken; Woody Harrelson brought a bad light to mentalists by manipulating others with his skills (wouldn't be surprised that audience might steer away from mentalists after watching the movie), and Dave Franco "glorified" the works of pick-pocketing. 

No doubt the intended purpose of showcasing such "skills" is to add another level of coolness to the movie, but it kinda felt like the Four Horsemen were abusing their skills and abilities for selfish reasons. 

Overall, I did like the movie to a certain extend, because of the main theme on magic, and it was a delight to watch the star studded cast come together. But like we're all too familiar with the saying "Now you see me, now you don't", any layman will know what's coming... Now You See Me is a forgettable film that will very quickly vanish from the memory archive of its audiences... 

Beautiful Creatures

Ratings: 5.8/10
Film Class: B
Genre: Fantasy Teen Film

Beautiful creatures has "teen film" plastered all over its plot, similar to Twilight, it's adapted from a novel and touches on teenage fantasies like the "dark" unknown and the all too familiar forbidden romance. 

Lena is the new girl in town who supposedly has some dark family background secrets. She has appeared in the dreams of male protagonist Ethan, who managed to win her heart with his preserverence, only to find out that she comes from a family line of sorcery. 

However, the true nature of her powers (either good or evil) will only be disclosed on her soon-to-come 16th birthday. Unknowing to her, her fate is already predetermined by a family curse and she has to find a way to break it before it's too late. 

I can understand why there's no hype about Beautiful Creatures... because it lacked the most important element of a teenage flick. It's not plot, nor sex, nor witty lines... It lacked eye-candies, regardless of whether they can act or not. My wife and I were grumbling about how a better looking male lead should be cast instead. If only the director had put in a little more effort in his audition, it might the have gotten a higher viewership... as Twilight did, thanks to Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson.

Well, the saving grace of the film was Ridley, acted by Emmy Rossum, cousin of Lena who fell to the dark side on her 16th birthday because of the curse. She's so gorgeous she could have any man do as her bidding, and I'm sure it's not just in the context of the movie. 

The plot was decent, leading to an unexpected outcome, but the acting of the 2 leads weren't convincing enough, resulting in a lack of onscreen chemistry. The buildup was hastily done, before any chemistry was conveyed, both of them were already awkwarding kissing each other. 

Wasn't expecting much, yet it still failed my expectations. You'll probably wanna give this a miss...