Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Ratings: 7.4/10

Film Class: B+

Genre: Action Fantasy Thriller

It was an enjoyable remake of the classic Hansel and Gretel fairytale story, it seems the trend of Hollywood is making darker fairytales these days... Little Red Riding Hood, Beauty and the Beast (Beastly), Snow White (Snow White and The Huntsmen), well the list goes on, and will continue to do so I believe. I wouldn't be surprised if 3 Little Pigs and The Singing Bone comes on screen in time to come. 

However, in this version of Hansel & Gretel, the focus weren't on the bread crumbs, but more on Hansel & Gretel, and the sisterhood of witches. Though the CG for the witches were scary, this isn't a horror movie but an action-packed movie with horrific creatures, somewhat like Van Helsing. Ok now, I'm stating the obvious, but there is a certain twist to the story which makes it rather interesting to watch, not some no-brainer witch-blowing movie. 

After burning the witch who held them captive when young, the brother sister duo Hansel & Gretel grew up to become witch hunters. Their newest case unknowingly leads them to uncover a brewing plot to forever change the fate of witches. 

*spoilers ahead* The trailer was rather misleading, I had thought most parts of the movie was for Hansel to save his kidnapped sister. But it was just a tiny-weeny part, Hansel & Gretel were separated very early, but each had their "cool" moments. In fact, Gretel was more kickass than Hansel, and nothing beats watching a badass beauty in kickass action. 

Predictable plot, and even though the twist was predictable, it makes a great light-hearted film to catch.

World War Z

Ratings: 8.8/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Action Horror

World War Z's fast-paced and cuts to the chase minutes into the movie, and the suspense kept running throughout. Possibly one of the best zombie apocalypse movies out there, where the focus was more on the plot, at the same time it didn't shortchange zombie movie fans with the lack of zombie action. The tension was breath-gasping and the scenes were mostly original, *major spoilers ahead* stacking of zombies up a Jerusalem wall, zombies being sucked out of a plane, and the classic video-game-styled melee-combat mission to get to a potential "antidote". 

Retired UN elite investigator Gerry is re-recruited to act as an escort for a leading Doctor who might be able to find a cure for a virus outbreak which turns humans into zombies in seconds. However, things doesn't go smoothly and he's forced to go on his own mission to find the antidote to save humanity. 

No time was wasted in introducing the characters, direct and straight to the point, the action comes in shortly after the first introductory scene. And from then on, it's intense action over and over again. This movie doesn't use gore or sudden soundblasts to scare the audience, instead, it fills your bottle of anticipation with suspense and breaks it with popping zombies. 

Though the story development was hastily done, with some parts being too ridiculously convenient (the finding of WHO HQ which is in the middle of nowhere), I'm more forgiving towards it compared to Man of Steel mainly because of the genre. I mean afterall, zombie movies are meant to be at least 50% brainless so that the audience can have a great time being scared-relaxed and the plots always tend to be very cliche. Not for this though. 

*major major spoilers ahead* It has an interesting twist to the antidote and whilst the ending was a little abrupt, this 116 mins film sure does know how to distinguish itself from other zombie movies. The close to ending scene was super cool when Brad Pitt walked his way out of a horde of flesh-eating zombies after drinking a can of pepsi from a deserted vending machine. 

One of my favourite zombie flicks which packs well-balanced suspense, a fresh plot, diverse cast and it's more of an action horror than a scary horror-type fiilm. Realistic scenarios if the world was to be infested with zombies and even the workings behind the antidote was scientifically/evolutionarily logical. Good stuffZ!

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. 

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. 

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.