Interstellar

Ratings: 9.8/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Sci Fi Action

Interstellar is an intergalactic mix of stellar storyline, stellar performances and stellar soundtrack. The movie's about a gifted astronaut who was tasked to lead a team into a newly found wormhole which would allow humans to travel light years away to find another habitable planet. Set in a futuristic world where humans are threatened with frequent dust storms, Interstellar is guaranteed to make you laugh, cry and be blown away by the script and cast performances. The movie spans over a few dimensions, mentioning up to even the 5th dimension, and the dreary, at times sinister sounding soundtrack completes this blockbuster with a "6th dimension".

I was surprised to be laughing quite a bit, with the witty one-two liners throughout the entire movie, a much needed relief, because most of the time, I was either teary-eyed or clenching my fist balling myself into a corner of my seat because it was a rollercoaster ride alright. The believable chemistry sparked by the stellar cast was really crucial in touching that "chord", and once the director nailed it, he knew he could focus on the sci-fi part and ultimately the seat-gripping action part. Explanations were quick, but precise, and director Christopher Nolan wasted no time in progressing the storyline.

I was pleasantly surprised to see a familiar face, actually many, but that one particular actor who wasn't featured in any of the trailers helped add brownie points to this already amazing movie. There were a couple of twists here and there and my advice is to stop now, if you haven't already watched the movie to go catch it first because it's best viewed not knowing what you're in for.

Interstellar is my number one sci-fi movie. Hands down, and I'm confident it will stay at the top of my list for a long while. The CG wasn't "Gravity" like, it wasn't state-of-the-art, at some point, I thought I even saw traditional props being used to create the space effects. But it was obviously a deliberate, well thought-of decision because the seemingly grainy graphics added realism to the out-of-the-world storyline, and in that, sucking the audience into a blackhole of the unknown.

Relativity, wormholes, the 4th dimensions are all tricky topics to address in any movie because it's bound to be subjected to criticism, but Christopher Nolan was so bold he literally "threw" the concepts right smack at our faces, take it, or leave it. But in doing that, he managed to create a movie experience like no other. I was so impressed with the storyline my reactions towards it was converted into denial... that I could not believe a movie of this calibre could even be made.

A definitely must-watch. A masterpiece.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*warning, major major spoilers ahead. Do not read on if you haven't caught the movie*

To be extremely critical, there were a couple of "loopholes" I hope will be covered as added footage when the blue-ray DVD comes out, such as the backstory of Matthew McConaughey and how in the end everything seems to right itself - him waking up to a whole new world. 

Christopher Nolan has his "trademark" scenes, reminiscence of "Inception", the floating around (extremely apt cos it's in space!) and the warping of the landscapes. I have an inverted commas for trademark because I think they're only seen in Inception and not his other well known movies such as The Dark Knight... though the cast featured familiar faces, such as Ann Hathaway and Michael Cain.

I thought the main theme of the movie wasn't about saving the world, that's only secondary to "love". It wasn't until towards the end when Ann Hathaway took off her astronaut's helmet to get a breath of fresh air in another world that got me thinking... perhaps the ultimate moral of the story was love. That it can be felt, but not proven, just like religion, the so-called "feel", which was why I term it the "6th dimension" as above, thanks to the soundtrack.

There were 3 options for them to choose from, and all 3 were chosen by the time the credits rolled. The choices of which seemingly liveable planets to shuttle to given the lack of space fuel. The first was a bad choice, an interesting world of water, but they were supposedly only given 1 other choice to choose from. Of the other two, there was a more logical and practical choice, which the crew ultimately did go to, but the 3rd and last planet was only visited by Ann Hathaway at the end. Rem the removing of the helmet part? There was a particular scene in which she explained she felt was the right choice because it was love that drove her to make that choice. Well, apparently it seemed, that the choice was right afterall - a different, alternate route, with the same outcome - the preservation of humanity. Both Matthew McConaughey and Ann Hathaway eventually took different routes, but with similar desirable outcomes.

Also, I believe there's also a part about the bond with robots. It wasn't until re-checking out of the trailers just (cos I wanted to see if that well-known actor I mentioned above did appear in any of the trailers) that I was able to revisit this particular scene at the start that Matthew McConaughey said that robots can't adapt. That statement of his proved that he lacked empathy towards machines, or robots, and can be seen with his earlier conversations, but eventually a friendship with robots was built, seen towards the end.

At the beginning of the film, it started with a narration of an elderly woman (and some others), assumed to be the daughter of Matthew McConaughey which kinda "spoilt" the ending because I figured out a crucial twist in the movie, the "ghost" the younger her spoke of. However, even though it turned out as I had predicted, it was the build up that got to me. The so-called possibilities seemed so bleak that at some point I doubted that it could even lead to that outcome, but it did.

Though full attention has to be given to ensure that you're able to grasp the storyline (try not to miss their conversations), but overall it wasn't too taxing a film as long as you're not an over-thinker or a major critic of interstellar travel. 

I thought it was a digestible mainstream blockbuster which is set to impress both the young, and old, regardless of gender and knowledgeability.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(PS.: On second viewing, I realise there's almost no jarring loopholes. The backstory was such that Matthew McConaughey crashed during his flight into the stratosphere (dream scene at the start, and there was a line about it somewhere in the film about the rest of the "astronauts not even going pass the simulators"), and that when he was finally found at the end, it was because the Cooper station was orbiting near Saturn, where the wormhole was. He apparently was floating around in outer space when two blinking lights (the station) found him after the "tesseract" (extra dimensional space after passing through the blackhole) collapsed.

The lines in the "tesseract" were gravity lines, subjected to manipulation and where the connection to the watch which he gave his daughter was possible since gravity was supposedly a constant in time. So eventually time didn't alter or anything of that sort in the end, all that happened was that the so-called anti-gravity equation was solved, hence lifting the station into space, which would eventually orbit around Saturn, and hence, save Matthew McConaughey.

Also, the 2 different sets of robot voices I thought I had initially heard wasn't due to a change in voice-over... but because there were 2 robots on board the ship. One was the "auto-pilot", the other was the one following the astronauts around - the humorous one.

The time-loop paradox was still prevalent, that if in the first place had he succeeded in communicating to his daughter in the "tesseract", he wouldn't have ended where he would in the first place - none of the past would have happened. And if he had indeed gone into the "tesseract" the first time round and not succeed, it would mean that his "2nd time" there, was possibly an alternate reality. But if it was indeed an alternate reality, then there would have been too many variables to factor in. However, I'll close my case on this chicken-and-egg reasoning and bask in the beauty of this one-of-a-kind space odyssey...)

Gone Girl

Ratings: 8.0/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Suspense Thriller

Gone Girl is a disturbing film about the disappearance of the wife of Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck), your seemingly average Joe living in a small town community. Things started to get interesting when the story gradually unfolded, but took a turn for the twisted, yes twisted, not just twist, when the 2nd half of it slit opened like a can of worms. There was one particular in-you-face gross scene, Hostel-style but for most parts of it, it was mental, psychological.

When I walked out of the cinema, it made me appreciate the mundanity of our world. It was such a relief to step out of the warped reality I was sucked into. Yup, it's that kind of film which makes you more sane after. Let's just say that if all marriages are this delusionally twisted, I bet no sane person will ever wish to get married in the first place. It exaggeratedly portrayed an extreme side of marriage only a sadist would enjoy. 

It's the epitome of sociopathic films, kinda reminds me of Mulholland Drive and Blue Velvet, the same feel, just that it's more mainstream. Definitely falls into the category of my "wall of weird", mentally creepy movies. 

I didn't like the overpowering use of background sound and music during a couple of flashback scenes, and most parts of the nudity was uncalled for. They neither built sexual tension nor added any value to the plot, more like awkward quickies here and there. 

What I did like was how the film seems to be like a 2-part anthropology series - the first part is what we see from the trailer, and what we think we know, but the 2nd part just went totally "off" course... It was unpredictable for me, and I'm sorry that without warning, I've kinda spoilt the 2nd part for you. But don't let what you think you know stop you, because the mental and "feel" aspect of it can only be experienced, not explained. 

Acting wise I thought Carrie Coon, Ben Affleck's on-screen sister, was one of the best. As for Rosamund Pike, the vanished wife, I have mixed feelings about. It was weird to watch her intended "false" acting, more soap opera-ish than spooky, but there was a segment which I thought she nailed it. To protect whatever suspense is left, I shan't elaborate on but let's just say the ending is definitely gonna be one you won't expect. While it left most of the audience flabbergasted, I thought it was the best possible outcome to bring back the realism of failed marriages.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*Warning, major spoilers ahead. Do not read on if you don't want the storyline spoilt for you*

I need to get it off my chest... the part that I liked most about the film, the reason why it has a rating of 8.0 even though it doesn't sound that fantastic is because of the reason that Rosamund Pike returned to her husband - delusioned love. Well, at least that's the direct reason given in the film.

When she came back to him after disappearing for that long, after killing and framing her ex-lover who helped her, it was just weird to me. It was too sudden and the flow felt hasty, as if the director needed to end the film quickly after dragging for so long... But that one scene, close to the ending scene by which she explained her reason for doing so, though warped, was pretty sweet. Though delusional, who would have thought a sociopath could actually really fall in love? And when you bring a sociopath into the picture, almost conveniently, you wouldn't need much explanation because the things that they do and their rationalisms are all warped in the first place.

Not sure if I'm overthinking things but indirectly, perhaps the director is trying to tell us that Ben Affleck is a sociopath as well, more subtle, more hidden. Thinking back, even though his wife has vanished, him having sex with his affair in his sister's house and blatantly lying about it the next day in front of the hundreds of volunteers was further proof that he was perhaps a sociopath himself. As much as the audience would like not to see it, the deal breaker was the part where he convincingly allowed himself to be interviewed on-screen (though not live but one-take nonetheless) that he yet again blatantly lied about his wife, to his wife, to the rest of the world. And it was that same scene which convinced her that he does indeed love her.

To finally back it up, the choice of Ben Affleck for the very last scene might just prove my theory right - that he decided to be with her still after all that she had done to him. In a way, like attracts like. Maybe, just maybe, "Gone Girl" refers not just to the literal meaning of Rosamund Pike being gone, but also that sociopathic part of her who hated her husband so much, yet was able to finally let it go...

The Fault in Our Stars

Ratings: 7.8/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Romantic Drama

Both the leads' performances were commendable. But it was Shailene Woodley who really shined in this romantic drama about a teenage girl stricken with cancer but struck by love. It's the love story of Hazel and Augustus, a boy she met at a cancer support group who's overly optimistic about life. Their chemistry was undeniable, and while the plot wasn't exactly "Imba", that one pre-eulogy scene about little infinities was, with a lack of a better description, mind blowing. 

*major spoilers ahead* I have heard of Zeno's Paradoxes (though I only found the exact term of it by googling just) from a series of youtube videos by Numberphile (and possibly Vsauce), especially the Achilles and the Tortoise Paradox, and I'm no stranger to romantic movies loaded with unfamiliar "aww" touching lines, but I have to say this movie packs one of the best. It was so sweet and uncliched-like that instead of experiencing goosebumps, I felt euphoric. I know it's untypical, I should be feeling sad, but the "sugar high" I experienced was a feeling like no other. "Wow" was the word that had eluded me for a long long time... but it finally came back at that one scene. 

Quite frankly, I didn't like the movie that much. Aggravated by the lack of explanation of the title (Yes, I'm extremely anal about this), however it was salvaged by great acting and great scripting. Though credit has to go to the author who actually wrote the novel on which it is based on. From a layman's point of view, I had thought "the fault in our stars" refers to how unfair life was for Hazel and Augustus, individuals who cherished life and were happy to be alive despite being diagnosed with cancer. Cos there was a particular scene when Hazel made such a remark. 

However, it was thanks to my wife who had read the novel beforehand, who told me that it was made in reference to a quote in one of Shakespeare's works. "The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves, that we are underlings." In the book, it was brought up in an email correspondence between Augustus and an author by the name of Van Houten, whom Hazel adores. As to the meaning of its references, I guess you'll have to check it out yourself it you really want to know the answer because I'm not too sure myself to even comment on it. 

I'm going out on a limb here to say that there's an "infinite" number of movies out there to be watched, and there can only be a "finite" number on your to-watch list - The Fault in Our Stars, should be one of them.

Edge of Tomorrow

Ratings: 8.4/10

Film Class: A+

Genre: Sci-Fi Action Thriller

Through the film, we get to witness Tom Cruise's transformation from a cowardly Major officer into a heroic one, when he unknowing gains the ability to relive the day after death. Set in a post apocalyptic world where an invincible alien race has taken over part of the world, it is up to him to utilise his new-found gift to change the fate of mankind. 

As with any time travelling Sci Fi films, it's inevitable that logical flaws would emerge eventually. Edge of tomorrow does succeed in covering its tracks well, by spending minimal time on explanation and directing the attention towards the battle of wits between humans and aliens. Before the logical side hits me, I was already awe-struck by the super alien's abilities and how Tom Cruise even came about to "gain" such an ability himself. I especially liked the nomenclature of the aliens chiefs, 'Alpha' and 'Omega' - straight to the point, simple and intuitive. The aliens species are called Mimics, the 'Alpha' is the leader of the pack, with just a few of them around to take the lead, and the 'Omega' is the brain, the "Mothership". 

I shan't disclose too much here, because I thought the day-looping ability explanation was extremely cool and novel. There was no lack of deadpan, almost dark humour when Emily Blunt, an elite military sergeant, keeps killing Tom Cruise over and over again to reset the day. But it gives a clue as to how she became such an elite fighter herself. 

*major spoilers ahead* The only thing I didn't like about the movie was the happy ending. It's not that I'm a grumpy old man who detests happy endings because they're always never an accurate portrayal of the realities of life, but because this happy ending felt too indulging. It was as if the director chose a "happy" and "clean" ending so that his audience could all go home happy and chose to close an eye on the illogicalities of it. Perhaps, there's a deeper meaning behind that last scene, as explained on screenrant.com (I thought Ben Kendrick's post on the explanation of the ending was rather impressive), but taking into account how straightforward the plot is, I doubt that's the case. 

Even so, the damage is minimal, because the state-of-the-art CG easily wins over any grievances I have over it. It was so realistic, especially on the battlefields that I could almost imagine myself being there with Tom Cruise. Some of the scenes were pretty dark though, so the CG didn't impress as much there, but its that "grandeur" and impressiveness of the film as a whole that really blew me away... not ever since Starship Troopers or District 9 have there been an alien Sci-Fi film this good. 

A Walk Among The Tombstones

Ratings: 6.0/10

Film Class: C

Genre: Thriller

I didn't think it would be that literal. Liam Neeson, did indeed in the movie, walk among the tombstones in a cemetery. But there's probably a double meaning to that, referring to his so called boy sidekick who hung around Liam Neeson and his clients, drug traffickers. A whole bunch of them. Liam Neeson, a retired cop turned private investigator met the homeless boy in a library while trying to dig up more info for his new client, a drug trafficker whose kidnapped wife was chopped up into pieces despite having paid the ransom. And that was when the homeless boy gradually became his sidekick, and had "a walk among the tombstones (soon-to-be-killed company/dead man walking)".

The selling factor was no doubt Liam Neeson, and while I eagerly waited to see him in action in his stereotyped kick-ass solemn role, it failed this time. Even the so-called villains weren't that fearful. The pace of the plot was slow and draggy. Lack of action, and there was just too much unnecessary dialogue. There were too little "powerful" villains, it was simply a hunt for 2 psychopaths who goes around abducting unsuspecting girls and women, and slicing them up despite having receiving their ransoms. The way they chose their victims were also rather slip-shod.

*spoilers ahead* I mean they targeted drug traffickers cos they had money, and how the psychopaths even got hold of that info was because they killed an undercover DEA (drug enforcement administration) agent. The plan was rather random, motivation superficially disconnected. It was first disclosed that they were "not human", which kinda set the expectations for Hannibal-like killers. Then there was cutting off of boobs (sick, I know), and wrapped up body parts (double gross) despite having been paid. It would seem obvious from the description but when it came to that last victim, money seemed to be their main motivation. That's what I don't get. Are they psychopaths or just greedy sickos? I mean do psychopaths actually want money? Shouldn't they go around killing others for no good reason whatsoever? 

There's where I feel there's a disconnect. Perhaps my definition of psychopaths have been warped by the countless thrillers I've caught, but if the 2 abductors were indeed in it for the money, then they really suck at covering their tracks. Their modus operandi was too shallow, driving around in a conspicuous van under a company that's not registered in that area and abducting victims in broad daylight (mostly). Furthermore there was totally no mention as to how they spent those random money.

I sure hope the novel that it's based on doesn't fare that badly on the "holey" part. I do get the main idea, redemption. But everything else was like a pile of swaying jenga - full of holes stacked up with wooden blocks (brainless)... Oh wait, oh wait... perhaps there's a 3rd interpretation to the movie title - The audience are the ones supposed to make that walk, that walk among the tombstones, with brainless zombies...

If I Stay

Ratings: 7.1/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Romantic Drama

Mia Hall (Chloe Grace Moretz) is a talented cellist who has a bright future ahead of her, a happy and loving family, as well as a rising musician boyfriend. Basically her life was almost perfect, until a car accident threatened to take all that away from her. She has a choice, either to stay, or to leave the world. You would think it's an easy one to make, but circumstances made it to be a much harder choice for her.

There's some narrative from Mia, on-off back stories on her relationship with her passion (cello), her family and friends, and more importantly her boyfriend. 

If I Stay has an interesting plot, though cliché and rather predictable, it tells the love story of a seemingly mis-matched pair. Mia interest lies in classical music, whereas her boyfriend's in rock music. In fact, Mia's parents were once rock musicians. So I guess "rock" runs in her blood, and somehow she's attracted to "it". 

I recall a friend telling me once about how rock and classical music has many subtle similarities. I'm not a student of music history, but am sure it's no coincidence that there's such a genre of classical rock music. Not sure if it was the author's intention, (oh yeah, the movie is based on a novel if you don't already know that) but choosing to overthink it, classical and rock music might deceptively seem to be world's apart, paying homage to the saying that opposites attract, but in a way they're similar on many levels. 

It's a touching movie, proven by 4 weeping ladies (out of a possible 10) who shared the same cinema with us (and yes my wife was one of them) but I thought it lacked acting prowess which proved to be a detrimental deal breaker in this. It was one that could reach great potential, I was so ready to break down like a dramatic crybaby, hoping for that one scene to open that floodgate of tears that has been experiencing drought ever since I was the age of 10. *spoilers ahead* And that last scene could have done it, but because the male lead wasn't able to pull it off with the last song of his, doubled rummy-ied with the all too sudden awakening of Mia and the switching on of the theatre's lights, it felt anti climaxal. 

*warning, major spoilers ahead* Imagine that if he had been teary-eyed while singing the song which he had composed for Mia, with a husky voice, at the same time keeping his composure, it would certainly and definitely have made the guys cry too.

There were however 2 touching scenes which did sour my tear glands a little, one on the rooftop with her boyfriend reminiscing the day he first laid eyes on her, and the one where Mia's grandfather was beside her hospital bed telling her it was ok to let it. Personally, her grandfather, acted by Stacy Keach was the icing on the cake. The rest of the cast, unfortunately wasn't able to bring out the full potential of their roles. 

Chloe Grace Moretz is absolutely lovely to look at, but her stoic expressions were more fitting of a masked vigilante or a child vampiress. The male lead lacked a charisma that audience could cheer for and their on-screen chemistry fell short. 

Still it was a heart wrenching film, and audience could immerse themselves in the mood thanks to the melo-sounding cello (always works, worked then in the Japanese movie Departures, worked now in If I Stay).

I didn't like a couple of transition scenes,  you know how those scenes that are dark then suddenly turns bright the next scene which somewhat kinda hurts your eyes temporarily? Well, be prepared for 2 of these. And to make matters worst, there was something wrong with the sound towards the end of the movie, which I believe to be a fault of the theatre's and not the film itself. There was static in the background, which kinda hindered me from hurling my emotions forward. 

However, based on some scenes and spoken lines, it hinted as to how much better the novel might be. But since I'm not a reader, I'll have to say you should give this movie a go. Your tears would not be of regret, but of justified empathy. 

Belle

Ratings: 7.6/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Drama

Growing up in a white dominated era, the illegitimate mixed race daughter of a Royal Navy Captain is raised by her aristocratic great-uncle, Lord Mansfield. Inspired by a true story, Belle had to endure the prevalent social prejudice, but in the process found true love.

Belle isn’t your “ordinary” half-black young woman. Head-strong and vocally cultured, she isn’t afraid to speak up and to question any injustices. The pace accelerated when a case about a mass killing of black slaves on board a ship was brought to the attention of Lord Mansfield, who was also the Lord Chief Justice, aka a highly influential person.

It’s a case of whether killing the slaves was intentional, or was it not. It’s a simple plot, with the entire movie telling the story from Belle and her beau's point of views, and gradually focusing on that pivotal case which would forever change the course on slavery, bringing an end to it in 18^th century England.

The trailer kinda sums up the first quarter of the movie, showing important snippets here and there. What was bad wasn't watching the same scenes again, but that they felt like an extended version of the trailer. The scenes cut off rather abruptly, scripts were disjointed, and there was a total lack of character empathy.

Thankfully things took a turn for the better. Even though the dialogue were not well connected, each scene packed a powerful, thought provoking line or two which sounded impressive to both the listening audience, and the spaced-out ones.

I did go “wow” a couple of times and was rather impressed by the substance of the scripting. Belle was less of a love story, and more of a battle of words. Intellectually stimulating and emotionally provocative, this period drama will... will... for once... I'm at a loss for words...

The Book Thief

Ratings: 6.8/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Drama

Sent to a small town foster home in Germany during World War II, 9-year-old Liesel Meminger must learn to live a new life with her step parents, where she would eventually learn to read and gain a forbidden affection for books. It’s the infamous Nazi days when books were burnt to curb the spread of ideas and where Jews were the enemies of the state.

What makes this movie interesting is that the story is narrated by Death. The narration was literature-like, almost poetic, humorous at times. However, the story doesn’t do the movie title “justice”, if there’s even such a thing as justice at all.

I mean though we do see young Liesel stealing books from an affluent family at some point in the movie, it’s only for that short while. And there’s no justice, commentary or even much mention about it. It felt like a touch and go subplot, with the main plot lingering on this Jewish man Max, who was hiding out in their basement home because Liesel’s stepdad was indebted to Max’s dad.

I can’t help but assume that “books”, ideas was to be the major plot in this, but came to the realisation it was about Death and human relationships. Considering it’s a 2hr+ long movie, it could be quite draggy at times, without much of an ending climax. The Book Thief didn’t make my cut of heart-warming, soul searching movies, the only thing it stole, was my time.

The Hundred-Foot Journey

Ratings: 7.6/10
Film Class: C+
Genre: Comedy Drama 

A well-to-do Indian family living in Mumbai is forced to start life anew in another country after a merciless riot took their house and mother away. Once owning a chain of restaurants, the family (of 6) is now left with only one another, a rundown vehicle, and some spare cash. After the brakes of their SUV failed them along a French countryside, they are rescued by a local lady who helps them back to her town, treating them with great hospitality. There, their father chances upon a place for sale, just opposite a Michelin star restaurant which he took interest in. Despite the opposing views from his children, he obstinately buys the place and hence begins, the so-called “Hundred-Foot Journey”. What follows is a comic rivalry between the 2 houses, an unlikely friendship, an unlikely romance, and a young man’s goal of chasing the stars, the Michelin stars. 

*spoilers ahead* Despite the lack of a direct explanation or reference to the title, I believe it implicitly refers to the long journey taken by not the family, but by this young man, a son, a brother and an extremely talented chef towards his dream of creating dishes filled with soul, and memories. As he inches closer to culinary perfection, he finds himself lost among the stars. 

Well, that’s the back part, for the first 3/4s of the movie, it mostly revolves around the strong-willed father, the sharp-tongued Michelin star chef (Helen Mirren), the ambitious young man, and the good natured French girl. A more all-rounded built up, more engaging, and more suspenseful. Even though I kinda knew what to expect, it wasn’t a matter of “how”, it was a matter of “when”. And the “when” feels like a seduction of taste buds. Speaking of which, there was a particular scene which really whet my appetite, and I could, no kidding here… almost… almost smell curry (I did skip dinner for this movie though…). 

A beautiful story about East meets West, foodie-style, a fusion of culinary ideas, cultures, and more importantly, it deceptively “mocks” the Michelin stars. Either that, or it’s the director’s way of saying that one can’t have the best of everything; To chase perfection, sacrifices have to be made. It depends on one's priorities, just like taste, subjective.

It may sound like a typical food film, but I don't think I've ever seen one about Michelin stars. The story was credible, easily digestible and is guaranteed to tickle your senses one way or another. While it’s not perfect, with the rather hasty plot progression towards the end which did snap a few reeled-in “fishing” lines (I was hooked alright), I find this movie to be a “journey” well travelled. Definitely a sleeper hit (a low profile film which didn’t start out well, but would eventually be a huge success) since it’s the first time in a long while that the cinema I watched it at was only 25% filled despite opening merely a week ago. 

I’m hoping it won't take this Michelin-star movie the same “Hundred-Foot Journey” the young man had to take before the masses uncovers the secret ingredients of a great movie – the evocation of the five senses served on a simple plate of ideas.

Magic in the Moonlight

Ratings: 9.2/10

Film Class: C

Genre: Romantic Comedy

Director Woody Allen has finally stolen my heart. I was never a fan of his movies, but have now succumbed totally and completely. I'm now a fan of his, a fan of Colin Firth and a fan of Emma Stone. Both the leads were stellar, performances demanding of only the best to pull off a film like this. Emma Stone was glowing with magic, while Colin Firth impressed with finesse. 

I'm not sure if its a satire on religion, using magic as its theme, or tool, but I do know it does address the irrationalism of love. 

Colin Firth is a professional illusionist as well as a renowned debunker of psychics. Approached by an old friend to help debunk a seemingly authentic psychic, he willingly pits his wits against his greatest challenge yet, a nemesis who could potentially knock him out of his senses.

It felt like watching a witty play, entertaining, upclose and personal. I'm sure it's Woody Allen's style (watched a couple of his previous movies); opening credit scenes without any background (black) coupled with playful upbeat music (and soundtrack), witty dialogue, mostly humorous but comes across more "stage-play-like" than "real-life" and a huge focus on the dialogue instead of fast paced cut scenes or CG. And usually, there's an engaging plot to back it, with the all-hated abrupt cliffhanger-like fade out ending scenes. Only this time, the ending was a stunning closer. 

I love how the magic of old school cinematography triumphs in this modern era through the lens of Woody Allen. Old school cinematography had more focus on characters, dialogues and scenes. In layman's terms, it's like watching a movie with lesser frames (settings) per second, or minute. Ok, perhaps that's a bad analogy. Basically, it's slower paced, and more engaging.

The lack of elaborate CG (though there's some CG of the countryside background during the driving scenes) further proves that it doesn't take impressive CG or Hollywood A-listers for a movie to reach the moon, it just takes an old school "observatory" to be able to get there. 

While there were some exposé, there was no harm done. Magic in the Moonlight was, simply put, beautiful. An absolute delight. An absolute eye opener. An absolute wonder. 

Like Father, Like Son

Ratings: 6.6/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Drama

Like Father, Like Son tells the difficult story of 2 families who had their biological sons mixed up at birth. Raising someone else’s son as their own unknowingly for 6 years, the hospital called one day to break the news to them. This movie challenges your decision making ability and greys the line between what the “right” upbringing of a child should be.

Full of dialogue and rather slow paced, Like Father, Like Son is unlikely to impress. There’s too much of your everyday human factor, set in a rather realistic scenario which any parent would dread. And because it touches on such a sensitive topic, it’s the kind of movie people would rather not watch and hope that such a situation doesn’t happen to them. I, let curiosity get the better of me.

*major spoilers ahead* I sat through it hoping to witness an ingenious “solution”, a promising outcome to repair the broken situation. But I came out defeated. There was no solution, only grievances. It was realistically unrealistic, such that the events turned out to be rather extreme, the upbringing and the lives of both parents. It also portrayed the ugly side of the hospital’s management, though realistic, was too much for an equilibrated audience to tolerate. It was like blows and blows of injustice without a “hand of god” to right things. Furthermore, the film seems to “take sides”.

Just when I thought it was too one-sided, there was however, a powerful quote towards the end, about how a husband and wife is not blood related and yet they can still start a family, which really got me thinking, is blood really thicker than water? Is nurture really more important than nature?

I didn’t enjoy it because I experienced cognitive dissonance. On one hand it seemed like the obvious choice to choose your own flesh and blood, on the other, 6 years of nurturing cannot simply be discredited just by the appearance of “blood”.  Time is equally priceless as well, the magnitude of love is built by time, yet the logic of love runs in your veins.

It’s a melodrama that would make your better days worst, and your worst days better. And I watched it, on a good day. 

Marvel's Guardians of the Galaxy

Ratings: 5.5/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Comedy Fantasy

What a joke this is. Guardians of the Galaxy feels more like a spoof than an actual Marvel movie. It's like watching a live action cartoon with a no-brainer storyline, awful progression, one-liner lame scripts, an utterly mismatched soundtrack and horrible on-screen chemistry by the 5 guardians. 

*Major spoilers ahead* The lameness skyrocketed at the last duel scene, the dance. Oooo, the dance. It totally stripped out and shattered whatever dignity left of it. 

Most of the scenes were just either off, lame, fake or forced. I can't even find the words to describe it because I've exhausted my vocab of verbal slamming. At one point, no, two, it was so bad that I just shook my head in utter disbelief. The build up of lameness was well paced, climaxing only at the end, and it hits you hard again and again. 

I haven't got the slightest clue how Marvel would allow such a horrendous instalment to be made. I understand it's there to tie the "loose" ends (seen in most Marvel stingers about the collection of infinity stones) and to introduce some pivotal characters, but not in this manner... Oh my, I'm so hooked onto this feeling... this feeling of non-stop rattling disappointment...

And yes, there's an end credits stinger... Nope not the dancing treeling, the talking duck! 

Earth shattering horrendous, gravity defying floppy. Guardians of the Galaxy seems to be fighting for the bottom spot for worst superhero movie ever made... And if indeed it does, it deserves an Oscar for it. 

The story spans around 5 mismatched intergalactic criminals turned heroes in their quest to protect an infinity stone from falling into the wrong hands. If you don't know what an infinity stone is, it's a gem imbued with immense powers, and there's 6 of these. This movie only features one. Having all 6 would make any being omnipotent. 

The only saving grace of this is that we get to see Thanos, even only for a good minute or so. And if you're scratching your head wondering who this Thanos character is, he's a super villain, immortal-like, with limitless power because he would eventually control and wear the infinity gauntlet (comprising of the 6 infinity stones). 

It might not be necessary to watch this to piece together the side plots of the Marvel movies so far, but (I'm slapping myself with a stick while saying this) it does make it easier to follow for future instalments. I hate how it's such an "important movie" considering how awful it is. What a bummer, what an A-hole...

300: Rise of an Empire

Ratings: 8.0/10
Film Class: A
Genre: Action

I don't get it. What's with the bad reviews about this 300 sequel? Perhaps movie-goers/critics compared this with the first, which of course is justifiable but rather unfair. Don't expect this to match the epic 300 starring Gerard Butler back in 2006, I'm just so glad this sequel doesn't flop. Not only did it not, it reminded me of the "coolness" I had long missed in its first instalment. 

In fact, 300: Rise of an Empire isn't really a sequel. It's about the fervent Greek General Themistocles leading his troops into a sea battle with the Persian navy under the god-like Xerxes. Xerxes is this gold-skin-clad mortal turned god after witnessing Thermistocles kill his father during his younger days. Leading his Persian navy is lady commander Artemisia (Eva Green), born of Greek origin, but sold as slave and saved by the Persians, hence her deep hatred towards the Greeks. 

*spoilers ahead* 

The story of Rise of an Empire takes place concurrently with the first series, while Themistocles is battling Artemisia in this, King Leonidas (Gerard Butler) was battling Xerxes in the "prequel". However, this sequel spans through a longer time frame, hence featuring King Leonidas's wife, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) joining the battle field with her Spartan army and lending support to the General. And Queen Gorgo is also the leading narrative throughout the film. 

A final sequel is promised, the battle of Xerxes with the gathering forces, the unity of Greece. The only complain I have is the short ending battle scene between General Themistocles and Artemisia. But apart from that, all the fighting scenes were a cinematic delight. Even though the ingenuity of the sea-tactics cannot match those of the Chinese Three Kingdoms era, it's still a spectacle to watch. Eva Green was a force to be reckoned with, and General Themistocles, acted by Sullivan Stapleton, a rather unheard of actor, gave an outstanding performance despite critics' reservations. 

There's also some boobies shown, more adrenaline pumping than arousing, and there's yet again another epic movie quote which is sure to stand the test of time. 

"Better we show them, we chose to die on our feet, rather than live on our knees!" Not only did this sequel not die, it's living on its feet and rises to expectations.

Winter's Tale

Ratings: 5.0/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Fantasy Romantic Drama

Beverly Penn: What's the best thing you've ever stolen?

Peter Lake: I'm beginning to think I haven't stolen it yet. 

A burglar breaks into a heiress's home and the chance encounter forever changes both their lives. It's a romantic story, horribly portrayed with the confusing mix of scenes, spiced with an out-of-this-world plot. Angels, devils and Lucifer all star in this rather seemingly "normal" movie. It's not your ordinary love story, it's a movie about miracles... saving that red head girl which will disrupt evil's plans. 

If you're wondering why my brief synopsis of this swings full spectrum, it's because it is what it is. I couldn't come to terms with what I was watching, same goes for my poor wife who had to sit through this deceivingly romance-promising movie with me. You see, it featured the song "Wings" by Birdy in the movie trailer, which I used on my wedding day. I had wanted to "relive" that romantic memory, but it came nowhere near the romance I had hoped for. The only touching part was when Collin Farrell watched a playback of an old static footage. 

I think the romance factor was overshadowed by the fantasy part, making Winter's Tale a sad, gloomy addition to anyone's movie library. At the end of it, I'm almost certain you'll ask yourself... "What the hell did I just watch?" So skip it, it's a winter you don't want to go through. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes

Ratings: 8.8/10
Film Class: A
Genre: Action Drama

Hidden under the realistic ape-like features of the ape horde is deceiving state-of-the-art CG. It doesn't look like anything much, but the fact that the entire movie immerses you into a whole new experience, a world dominated by apes, is just proof of how outstanding the graphics, as well as the plot is.

Caesar, the not-so-loved super intelligent ape from the forgettable Rise of The Planet of the Apes is back as the leader of a thriving new species of hyper intelligent apes. However this time round, Caesar promises to steal your heart in what I believe to be the most realistic portrayal of an animal-human in cinematic history. It was too horrifyingly realistic for me back in the prequel, because it felt rather weird then. But not now. In Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, the realism is what makes this film a worthy award-winning Hollywood Blockbuster.

Living peacefully in the forest with his newly formed ape colony, a group of humans unintentionally invades their territory. Fearing for the safety of his colony, he threatens the humans to leave them alone, if not war would be imminent. You see, most of the human colony has been wiped out by a virus, the Simian virus, allegedly developed as a result of the unorthodox experiments on the apes back in the prequel.

The surviving human colony is running low on energy, and thus treks into the woods to find another energy source, which so happens to be in the ape territory. This is when the plot thickens. The group returns to explain the situation to Caesar, seeking his trust to allow them to fix a rundown energy reactor. Friendships were made, trust was tested and conniving plots were given birth to. You’ll probably know where this leads to, eventually. But you wouldn't expect some twists in the story which makes this film more “human” than it actually seems.

There were a couple of eye-souring moments and this reboot of the cult classic rockets the ape-dominated franchise to greater heights. This movie is 70% ape, 30% humans, paying homage to the title and to the franchise, and the ending stinger is nothing like you've ever seen… or more accurately, heard.

*major spoilers ahead* There’s an audio stinger at the very end of the credits, a pretty long wait, but pretty worth it. It kinda hints towards what to expect for the sequel, chimp sounds, moving rubble, and what seemed to be breathlessness. In fact, I had read about the spoilers for the stinger right after the credits started rolling because my bladder was about to burst then. But I somehow managed to will back my tide till the very end. The breathlessness was very subtle… but very likely means the survival of a pivotal ape character.

The magnitude of my tension increased with each ape encounter, because I had to mentally gear myself for the abrupt attacks they would make because we all assume that when it comes to animals, they’re highly unpredictable. But that was exactly what the director wanted to portray, stereotyping. So was the same for my expectations about how the plot would unravel, but the twists were self-induced, without the stereotypes, the “twists” wouldn't be there.

The only puzzle rubble I have is where in the world did the horses come from? And then there was one, the one that Caesar rode on, and then many more magically appeared even though I hadn't seen any horses in the ape colony during the opening aerial shot nor in any other ape-colony scenes. Regardless, the horses gave a sense of mightiness to the apes and added a leaping advantage to the species which merely held spears. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is really more than meets the eyes, it touches briefly on romance, and lingers mainly around the "love" amongst inter- and different species. It's one of animalistic substance, which only "superior" humans and apes can appreciate.

*warning: major major spoilers ahead, do not read on if you haven't watched the movie*

PS.: Just an easter egg for you, I've been incorporating subtle references in the words used during my newer posts (2014), see if you can identify them (you probably need to watch the movies first).

I'll just leak this one out, references made to the eyes - "eye-souring", "more than meets the eyes" (don't think the plural form of this phrase exist, so yes, it's not a typo). Fyi, not sure if it's a director's trademark but the starting and closing scenes are zooms out/in on Caesar's eyes. There's lotsa focus on the eyes throughout the movie, especially that of Caesar, probably to portray his humanistic nature.

And a weirdly but catchy combined twin word, "puzzle rubble". To refer to the audio stinger which I thought was an ingeniously novel way to imply the survival of the antagonist, of him emerging through the fallen rubble.

The Flu

Ratings: 8.5/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Action Drama (Korean)

I can't believe I actually watched The Flu twice in a single week and not be bored by it. I was impressed the first round, though unexpected because I have always silently hoped for a good virus movie comparable to Hollywood's Outbreak and yet didn't think there ever would be one. There was a good mix of light-hearted humor, and a rather well-thought-of myriad of possible character traits should a city ever fall into chaos because of an unspeakable virus. 

Ok, straight up-front, not everything makes perfect sense, there were some forgiveable questionability in the time-frame at which the virus spreads and how it wasn't able to infect the male lead, but for dramatic sake, these easily slide by. Though there was a line mentioned somewhere in the film which explained that the infectivity rate was about 50%. 

*major spoilers ahead* There was one particular scene near the end with all the dead bodies that made me feel like I was sitting through a zombie apocalypse movie, positively speaking of course since I'm a huge fan of zombie flicks. That was just unexpectedly awesome, coming from a Korean movie - it had a Hollywood blockbuster flair to it though I'm almost sure you haven't even heard of this movie before. 

When it came out in the movies, I had wanted to watch it so badly, but missed it due to a hectic work schedule. And then there I find myself silently hoping to find it on the shelves of any TS video stores (which specialises in selling Korean dramas), only to puke blood after realising that they were all closing down (few months back). And just when I was about to give up all hope... I found it in the most unlikely of places... Kinokuniya! Which is now my number one spot to hunt for Jap and Korean movies! A little side story about where I found these little gems from. 

Anyhows, there was even an "extended" ending, with the little kid repeatedly shouting "Don't shoot at my Mummy" at a whole troop of trigger-ready militants. It was a powerful scene. 

What I liked about The Flu is that it's very dynamic. The themes and the personality traits of its characters. There wasn't just one "bad" villain, in fact the main villain was a "good" person in the first place. And under such circumstances, it's saddening to see how people react selfishly to preserve their survivability. There's no clear right or wrong, because though selfish, most of the acts are rather "right" if you put yourself in their shoes. And everything happened for a reason. Something I found out during my 2nd viewing. One seemingly selfish act led to a new window of hope, so on and so forth. 

But what I liked most about it is the innocence of the lead actor. He's truly altruistic, but naively altruistic if you look at the big picture. I mean he can easily win the hearts of many because there's no doubt in anyone's mind that he's the true hero in the movie but it was because of his naiveness and his refusal to believe in the higher ups' false claims that made it uncomfortably realistic. His "stubbornness" to save people might in fact jeopardise the safety of the world. 

An air-bound viral infection is spreading through the city of Bundang and this is a movie about how a rescue officer and his loyal buddy, an infectious disease specialist doctor and her daughter, the president and his cabinet's members battle the worst epidemic the nation has ever seen before it's too late...

A movie worth coughing out blood money for...

PS.: There's a stinger after the first half of the closing credits. Worth waiting for.

Oshin

Ratings: 7.0/10

Film Class: C

Genre: Drama (Japanese)

Oshin is a young girl born in a destitute family who was sent to work as a live-in-servant at the young age of seven. Her 2 older sisters (whom we never get to see) had also sent off to work, though back then they were not as young as Oshin. Her family was living in such poverty that they had no choice but to send her to work for a year in exchange for just 2 bags of rice so as to feed their family. However, she was ill-treated and accused of a theft she didn't commit, resulting in her escaping from the family. Saved by a soldier deserter, they soon form a friendship, though short-lived, that will forever change the life of this young girl with an unbreakable spirit. This is a story of Oshin, a story of women. 

Though the DVD synopsis kinda stopped there, at the soldier deserter, it turned out that this lengthy movie was sort of a 2-part mini series... The beginning of Oshin and her friendship with the soldier deserter, and her bond with a grandmother of yet another wealthy family... who taught her the real meaning of life. 

It was extremely dreary. *major spoilers ahead* There didn't seem to be a sliver lining anywhere in the movie, until the grandmother showed up. But still, not one I will watch again. Briefly put, this movie glorifies women, the hardship they had to go through during the olden days (Meiji period I believe - read it from Wikipedia though not mentioned in the film) in Japan, and it tells of the extreme poverty side of life back then. They were so poor Oshin didn't even know what "fresh" rice tasted like. 

Even though it sounds almost heart-breaking, it's not. I know it's a bit of a contradiction. But dreary doesn't necessarily mean heart-breaking. I was more awed by the unbreakable spirit of Oshin, as opposed to feeling sorry for her, or her family. It wasn't until the last part of the movie when the kind-hearted grandmother gave 2 valuable lines of advice to her about women (worth sitting through the movie for), that it all fell into place - what the moral of the story was. 

In fact the movie made guys look like wimps, the guys were rather useless who pretended to be useful around the house when in fact it was the woman who supported the family. That was the only part I didn't like. 

It was eye-opening, and though it ended rather abruptly, it was just right. I didn't see how better it could have ended, cos her agony felt like a never-ending one, but the director made his point with that last scene, that Oshin is not about working for a better life, its about finding light in what seemed like eternal darkness. It's not about hope, it's about purpose.

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Ratings: 7.3/10

Film Class: B+

Genre: Whimsical Comedy

Wes Anderson's film style doesn't follow the conventional Hollywood films, if you don't already know. I know of many of his movies, yet have only seen, perhaps 2. This, and the Fantastic Mr Fox. His use of bright colors for every single freaking scene is bold, yet refreshing. The use of whimsical songs lighten up the mood, and the scripting is pure genius - elaborately subtle, the funny serious type. However, I wouldn't exactly say this is a light hearted movie, and at the end of it, it feels quite... with the lack of a less offending word, meaningless. 

I guess you either worship him, or are impressed by him. I'm the latter sort. It's impressive alright, but not the kind of movie which I fancy. Despite having many of my favourite stars, especially Ralph Fiennes, I couldn't feel the movie - all I was treated to, was an entertaining delight of colors, star-studded cast and cutsy music. 

Ralph Fiennes star as Gustave, a legendary concierge in charge of The Grand Budapest Hotel. There's a new lobby boy, who eventually becomes his most trusted friend, and together, they journey through adventures of corruption, prison-breaks and assassinations. This is the story of how his lobby boy, came to own the Grand Budapest Hotel... 

I would recommend this, not for the plot, but for the cinematic genius and entertainment value. It's in a class of its own - cheesily classy. 

Midsummer's Equation (Detective Galileo)

Ratings: 8.3/10

Film Class: C

Genre: Mystery Drama (Japanese)

This sequel to Detective Galilieo's Suspect X is one of the most "soul-ful" Japanese movie I've seen. I might be overthinking things, but the "extended ending" really distorts my inner equilibrium. You can say this movie felt like a 2 chapter series, the first 3/4 of it was Chapter 1 about Manabu Yukawa, aka Detective Galileo, an astute physicist, being invited to a small town to explain to the townsfolk about an upcoming seabed mining plan. The townsfolk are against the idea because they wanna protect the marine landscape, whereas the mining company's there to convince them otherwise. 

What would seem like the main plot turned out to be a minor part of the entire movie - the seabed mining almost seemed redundant at some point, that the scriptwriters merely injected it as a "excuse" to get Yukawa to this small town. True enough, there wasn't much purpose of the seabed mining plot, an absolute throwoff subplot. Though there was some rationale afterwards, it was obviously a forced link. 

Despite the above, and a rather monotonous flow of events and dialogue, there were so many "human factors" that made this low profile movie a hidden gem. Before I finally speak of its glory, I have to also add that I don't see how this is a sequel to Suspect X, merely another movie on the Detective Galileo's hit series. 

*major major spoilers ahead, do not read on if you haven't watched the movie*

I thought it rather mundane and disconnected at first, about how Yukawa became involved in a supposed suicide case in the small town. He initially didn't care much about it, but it was a little boy who sparked his interest. I wondered how important the little boy was, I mean, how important could he be? Considering he was not even that related to the family which the opening sequence focused on, basically the mystery which was to be unravelled. 

It turned out, the little boy not only brought the themes of "innocence" and "inquisitiveness" into this dreary setting filled with multiple layers of disjointed secrets, he also brought a controversial lesson to be learnt in life - to unknowingly be an accomplice to a crime. He was made use of to carry out a crime, which he would always be guilty of, whether be it in the eyes of the law, or whether its within his own moral compass. Like they always say, the truth hurts. 

It's so bad that at some point, I just wondered to myself whether the truth should even be unravelled. For once, or one of the few rare moments in cinema history, the lie was really better off than the truth. Though Yukawa did what was merely right, it felt wrong. 

Of course, it wasn't just the boy. The father of the female lead and the female lead herself also stole a huge bulk of the limelight. There was one scene so provocatively strong and emotionally powerful that will surely "haunt" me from time to come. And that one scene was about how her father told Yakuwa that his hypothesis was wrong. Initially it seemed merely to be a scene of denial. But it wasn't just that. 

To really understand what that scene meant, and what my following explanation about it is, it's better that you watch the movie first before reading on. Briefly put, the backstory that is, is that his fake daughter Narumi killed the extorting wife of her actual Dad, so he and his wife tried to cover it up. Narumi's actual Dad having found out his daughter killed his wife, confessed to a crime he didn't commit. All was well, until this movie started. The apparent suicide of a man, who happened to be a cop. That's when Yakawa found out that he was murdered by Narumi's fake Dad because he found out that the cop was digging into the past, after realising that he (the cop) had falsefully put a man (Narumi's actual Dad) behind bars. 

And when Narumi's fake Dad rebutted to Yakawa that he did not murder the cop, and that Narumi is his daughter, he wasn't in denial. He said what he said because he wanted to protect his daughter. He was remorseful alright, but he didn't admit to his murder because that would mean that there was indeed something to hide, which also meant that Narumi did indeed murder someone.

It was a movie about love on a higher level, about the love of parents, about a daughter's realisation of her parent's love for her. This movie wasn't about justice, it was about finding out the truth. 

Detective Galileo's Midsummer Equation is a sum of human predicaments to the power 2.

Maleficent

Ratings: 6.5/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Fairy Tale Fantasy

Maleficent wasn't magnificent. But I have tons to say about it. This movie probably met with an identity crisis - the trailers portrayed a darker side of the classic Sleeping Beauty story we are all so familiar with (actually I'm not) but turned out to be "brighter" than expected. It tells the story from the perspective of the wicked witch... well, at least that was what I thought she was all along... turned out not all the wicked spell casters are witches, for Maleficent was a powerful fairy turned evil due to the betrayal of her first love. Evil isn't even the appropriate term to use here, let's just say she "lost her way". As to whether she eventually found "her way back", think I just gave it away.. *opps* (no spoiler alert here cos Maleficent's the main lead for a reason duh?).

The acting was pretty bad, generally, possibly because the cast had to act in front of a green screen most of the time. Almost every scene was so CG-ed, and the CG wasn't great, making it too unbelievable. The fantasy world that Maleficent lived in was actually pretty cool, with all the interesting mystical creatures, but was made unbelievable because Angelina Jolie's and Elle Fanning's acting gave it away (there was something unnatural about the way they acted). 

I didn't quite get the theme of the movie. It wasn't too "dark", it wasn't too "bright", it was neither here nor there. In the presence of a greater evil, I guess it makes the villains look good. The director crushed the Sleeping Beauty's story by portraying how scheming her Dad (King) was. I mean if it was meant to be a dark version of the Fairy Tale, he should have gone all the way. I was rooting for Maleficent from start till end, I mean what the prick right, since when did the spectrum of good and evil in the fairy tale universe reverse itself? Imagine the Beast psychologically terrorizing Belle to be with him, or the seven dwarfs plotting to cannibalise Snow White, or the Fairy Godmother cursing Cinderella with a disease that would consume her in her later years... should I continue? 

It's warped, it totally ruined what fairy tales are meant to be, and should be meant to be for the rest of eternity. And the "twist" at the end, was similar to Frozen, true love's kiss, I knew it was too easy. But yet, an applaudable point was that it wasn't too draggy. The true love kiss's part was straight to the point... though the lead up was choppy. 

It was a decent Disney film, but it won't be a "legendary" one for sure. A couple of giggles, and a scene with a touching quote from Angelina Jolie won't make me wanna lay eyes on this a second time though. But strangely enough, I... kinda recommend this film... Perhaps Maleficent has cast a spell on me...

X-Men: Days of Future Past

Ratings: 7.5/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Marvel Superhero

The X-Men must come together again... wait a minute, X-Men? It's more like Wolverine travelling back to the past and bringing together best-friends-turned-arch-enemies Professor X and Magneto to stop an assassination which brings about a doomed future for mutants and humans. A post-apocalyptic tale where time travel's possible (only in the Marvel Universe), where the mutants' and humanity's only hope against a world governed by invincible Sentinels is a 4-men team comprising of Wolverine, Professor X, Beast and Magneto. 

The 1973 back to the past era was more err.. human-like, whilst the dark future packed more Marvel-Superhero-Universe punch that X-Men fans have been waiting so long for; yup, it's finally here, a fireworks of mutant display during the opening and ending scenes. The only complain I have is the lack of action all through mid-way compared to the adrenaline pumping start, which reminded me of what X-Men felt like during my younger days, when it was still cartoon-ized. 

*spoilers ahead* I didn't like how Mystique was so crucial in this film, was never a fan of hers, but not only was she that important (in changing history), she was also the common love interest of Professor X, Magneto and even Beast. What?! It's not even a love triangle, it's a love square! 

While Wolverine didn't have his kick-ass alimentum claws back in the past, he does have his high-density bones to slice through... nothing? I don't even recall him Berserker Barraging anything, but he does feel more vulnerable, and a character's vulnerability makes the story somewhat more relatable. 

The ending is predictable, but definitely not the stinger. *major spoilers ahead* Even though it was less than 10 seconds long, the post-credits scene is worth staying back for, especially for fans... because it introduces this unknown new character, rather scrawny looking compared to how the comics/cartoon have always portrayed him... he is none other than the ultimate villain I had hoped for since the X-Men's first live motion picture... the Age of Apocalypse is coming. 

X-Men: Days of Future Past is the franchise's best sequel yet, a more all-rounded film with better focus, finally an X-Men movie more X-Men than Wolverine.