The Perfect Host

Ratings: 7.4/10

Film Class: C+

Genre: Comedy Thriller

I'm not even sure if there's even such a genre as comedy thriller but this movie does stretch the norm. David Hyde Pierce, the comedy man from Frasier (not the main guy, but his close friend), delivers a twisted and at times hilarious performance as a schizophrenic guy by the name of Warwick Wilson, who has an unexpected guest "house-crashing" his dinner. 

Problem is, this guest is not your average Joe, he's a badass criminal on the run who lied his way into Warwick's house, only to find out that he's an equally dangerous schizo guy. It's a battle of wits and even though I was supposed to loathe Warwick (I think), I absolutely adore him. It's a light-hearted thriller that's doesn't take things too seriously.

The development was subtlety high-paced, with a slow mood lingering from one scene to another, yet the story was hard hitting with all the awkward and twisted situations. It's not a movie you can simply put your finger on, cos it's totally cranky, peculiar and at the same time, utterly entertaining. Oh and btw, there's only minimal gore in this movie.

The ending is something to look forward to, considering how one would think it's just a typical battle of wits thriller. Not a blockbuster-type movie, but it's sure to hit your "top 100 most memorable movies of all times" list. 

War Horse

Ratings: 8.8/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Drama

Despite liking horses, there's an inertia for me to catch movies about horses whenever they're out on the big screens because I didn't think any of them would be able to beat the animated movie Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. The reason is simple, one can easily animate the expression and exaggerate the gallops of the horses when it comes to CGI but it's not that simple when they're dealing with real horses. Movies with horses always lacked that "horse factor" which I would expect to sweep me off my feet.

Not sure how much CGI was in this movie to animate the War Horse, Joey, but Steven Spielberg sure did a phenomenal job in capturing my heart to feel for the horse. Most other movies emphasized more on the lead cast, I mean after all, it's reasonable to do so since the director is probably paying more money for them, but not this director. You can be sure that for once, finally, after Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, that the main star of the movie was the horse, the War Horse, Joey. All the other actors and actresses were merely supporting cast. And that's what I loved about the movie.

Also, most movies about horses will surely be under the genre of Drama, Ie. They're dialogue driven. It's typically about bonds between the horses and the leads, about separating them and reuniting them at the end. This movie is no different. Typical plot when it comes to such movies, but the way it developed, that was the distinguishing part. War Horse, as its title suggests, is a movie about a horse during war time, to be more specific, during the war between England and Germany. And about how this strong-willed horse endured hardships to tide through the crisis.

It's also about how "angels" protected this horse, and how a chain of events lead to the ultimate ending. Typical storyline, I reiterate, but definitely not a predictable one. The events in this movie are quite "random" and unexpected, kinda reminded me of Inglorious Bastards. It even reached a point that I stopped guessing what's going to happen next and just sat back, to enjoy the movie in all its entirety. Few movies have been able to make me feel this way, me being the thinker I am, but somehow, there was too much feeling in this movie, there's just no time for thinking.

When the credits rolled, I was still trying to regain my "consciousness". I was sucked into the movie and it took me a while to get back out.

*Major spoilers ahead* There were many subplots in this movie, about the horse meeting different groups of people and how each and everyone of them started a chain event which lead the horse to where it ended at the final scene. And out of the maybe 3-4 subplots, I was fond of all of them. Those scenes acted like little episodes in this "drama series" and the movie didn't even feel that long (2.5hrs).

I was particularly fond of the Captain and the French girl's scenes. Thought I recognised the captain, he's actually the villain of Thor, Tom Hiddleston. And from this movie, it just shows how great an actor he is. He's actually also very convincing as a hero as well as a villain. And the young french girl, by the name of Emilie (Celine Buckens) whom I found from imdb, has never acted in any movies before this. Fantastic, fantastic, fantastic. The cast in this movie were just brilliant!! Apart from both of them who were exceptional, the rest of the cast were also top class.

But it wasn't just the cast, but also the graphics, the mood, the story, the development, the soundtrack, which earned this drama an "A" class. Rarely, in my opinion, that dramas are categorised under "A" class because of the nature of the genre, there would always be less CGI and "awesomeness" incorporated in them. Dramas are just on a different ballgame with Blockbuster movies packed with action and excellent CGI regardless of the storyline.

However, War Horse is different. It is in a class of its own, a "family" war movie. The only other movie which could be on par with this movie is possibly Inglorious Bastards. War Horse is a heart warming tale of a horse and its journey through the hearts and souls of people on both sides of the war during WWI. It would surely make you laugh, and possibly cry and most of all, have you remember it as one of the greatest horse movies, or movies ever made in cinema history. War Horse, I salut you.

We Bought A Zoo

Ratings: 7.5/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Family

We bought a zoo is a family drama based on a true story. I don't think everything in the movie was real, cos a huge load of its scenes were highly exaggerated, but with a plot about a family struggling to start afresh by buying a closed down zoo and fighting to revive it, I can't help but feel that I'll be damned for speaking ill of this movie.

It wasn't fantastic. That's for sure. It wasn't in any sense bad at all either. It was a slightly above average family movie which may trickle your tears every once in a while and there were a couple of good lines in it. Though the lines were a little out of place, and might not necessarily complement the scenes, they were in fact pretty good standalone lines.

*Major spoilers ahead* Briefly, such lines include (not quoted from the movie, but the gist of the lines are kept) "All you need is 20 seconds of insane courage", "Your happy is too loud" and "Sometimes we talk by listening".

Though cute, I personally didn't like the daughter in this movie. I felt that she didn't act well, but of course I'm just being too harsh on her since she's still very young. Elle Fanning, the cousin of Scarlett Johansson (one of the zoo keepers), though I like her generally, in all honesty, also thought she didn't act well. Either that or as my gf suggested, she possibly didn't know how to portray a country girl. Matt Damon's son, was irritating as hell with his unreasonable arguments and the way he treated Elle Fanning was crap (not personal). Didn't quite get his role. Didn't know what character trait he was portraying.

On the other hand, I thought Scarlett Johansson was convincing as a Tom-Boyish zoo keeper. Though I'm never fond of her, I thought she delivered well in this film. The chemistry between her and Matt Damon was convincing for me. And Matt Damon, as usual, doesn't fail in his acting.

The reason why there's so much criticism in the cast is because I feel that they are an important factor in making the movie a success. Ironically, though most of the cast may have "failed", the lines and story development made this movie quite memorable. *Major spoilers alert 2* Especially the scene about Matt Damon answering Scarlett Johansson with a mere "Why not?" when he was asked "Why did he buy the zoo." It was a rather awkward scene which ended abruptly. But it was explained at the end of the movie, which made it extremely sweet.

There's also an "abstract" metaphoric representation of how Matt Damon was feeling... with his reluctance to let go of the dying Lion, Solomon.

I have rather mixed feelings about We Bought A Zoo. There was a good 4-5 times which the cast kept "chanting" the title of the movie, as if the director was afraid we didn't know what movie we were watching and as mentioned, the cast were in general too ordinary. But because the way the events unfolded, it built up to a hard hitting ending which left me more satisfied than disappointed.

Therefore for anyone who's looking for a movie to bring your kids to, this is a good choice. However, bear in mind that the focus weren't on the animals but on the humans, so don't expect cute animals (more screen time was given for ferocious animals like tigers, lions and bears) but you can expect it to be a feel good movie.

Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol

Ratings: 8.0/10

Genre: Action Thriller

Film Class: B+

Before I continue with my review, I have to admit, this year's year-end blockbuster movies are definitely one of the best so far. There's so many good movies out there, like Sherlock Holmes MI4, War Horse, The Artist and 50/50. 3 of which I have yet to watch but reading the synopsis and the reviews, will only be a matter of time before I catch them on the big screens. But my first 2 top choices, Sherlock Holmes and MI4 was a good call.

While MI2 and MI3 totally flopped, which made me rather skeptical about the fourth, MI4 did justice to the very first movie of Mission Impossible. The classic scenes were still prevalent no doubt, with slight twists here and there but it didn't feel that cliche compared to its previous 2 movies. It was a one off event and weren't overly done. This time, the focus were more on the story and the characters instead of the filming style and trademarks of the MI franchise. If you're wondering what classic scenes/trademarks I'm talking about, they are:

1. Mission device will self destruct in 5 seconds

2. Tearing off of face disguise

3. Mission impossible theme song

4. Super cool gadgets (though some seemed a little exaggerated)

5. "Conquering" a famous place in the world

6. Flashing of the female lead's sexy legs when coming down from a super cool car
7. Classic 4 limbs stretched out suspension

Points 5 and 6 are more like the trademark scenes which evolved midway with the franchise. And from what I've observed, MI4 is probably going to pave the way for the female lead to clinch more movie contracts in the future. The MI franchise is starting to be like the modern day James Bond franchise, where it's like a platform for relatively unknown actors/actresses to make their debut and rocket their popularity regardless of how successful the movie turns out, in this case, excellent.

The only demerits of this movie I thought were some rather fake scenes (not that good a job with the CGI under Hollywood standards) and somehow, I wasn't able to follow the movie entirely. *spoilers ahead* I didn't quite get why landing himself in prison will act as a decoy? That said, the first prison breakout scene was a fitting grand opening to set the pace going and I don't think there was even a lull moment in the movie. It was hard hitting action scene after scene which made the 2hr+ long movie seemed like a 1/2 hr movie. Yup, it's that good. Though CGI lost to Transformers 3, the whole package beats the former hands down.

MI4 just proved one thing, the mission isn't that impossible after all to revive a dying franchise. I'm been humming the theme song in my head ever since I left the cinema hours ago... "Den Den Den, Den Den Den, Den Den Den, Den Den... Tu Tu Tu, Tu Tu Tu...Tu Tu!!"

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Ratings: 8.0/10

Genre: Action Thriller

Film Class: B+

This intellectual sequel of Sherlock Holmes left me feeling satisfied yet again, though a rather short flashback explanation at the end would have made it more complete, the ending didn't affect the pluses in this movie.

Plus 1: Robert Downey Jr. sure can act. I'm so glad he's back in the movie industry ever since he knocked himself out of drug addiction. He's an excellent Iron Man, even better Sherlock Holmes. Plus 2: Judd Law's like the eye candy for this movie (feminine speaking). However, it seems he has less "credit" for his character this time round but he does good the scenes he's given. Plus 3: I salut the new face on the big screens, the villain Professor Moriarty, or at least the actor acting as him. Have liked him ever since I first saw him in the series Fringe, and I'm sure we'll see more of him the near future.

Plus 4 & 5: For the comic moments, witty and humorous lines, and of course, the trademark "smart" plot. It's not exactly thought provoking, but gives the good substance type of feel. Especially loved it when the director pieced together the seemingly random events at the end. Opps, no spoilers alert this time but any fan of Sherlock Holmes would have guessed it either way. For those who haven't caught the first, then it's really like a "OMG" cause Sherlock Holmes definitely is one of the better movies of all time and missing the first is like missing the first series of Harry Porter and/or Lord of the Rings.

Fear not though, this movie is independent and you don't have to catch the first to appreciate this. Which brings me to my Plus 6: Cool action scenes. I almost forgot about the coolest part of Sherlock Holmes... his "Spider-Sense" detective skills. Sherlock Holmes has the ability to predict 10 steps in advance (metaphorically speaking) and it's so cool every time he "turns on" that ability of his.

Possibly the only minus in this movie, rather personal, is that I don't like the female lead. She's the lead from the Swedish version of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Trilogy and though I liked her in that, she just didn't quite seem to fit the role in this. She's a good actress nonetheless.

Overall, this sequel does justice to the Sherlock Holmes franchise and it paves the way for more installments to come. However, like most other sequels, the first still beats this one, but that doesn't mean part 2 was bad, it just means part 1 was better. The front, the middle, the back... two words to describe them... Good Stuff.

Captain America: The First Avenger

Rating: 7.1/10

Film Class: B

Genre: Action Superhero

And I thought this movie would be a blast... Considering Captain America is the first avenger... oooowwww.... it turned out there was not much to owwww about. The skinny pre-Steve Rogers was so convincing that I find it almost hard to believe that Chris Evans actually played him. Thought perhaps they superimposed Chris Evan's face on a skinny guy. But from the trivia, they actually CG-ed his body instead.

Steve Rogers is a patriotic citizen of America who wouldn't give up his dream of becoming a military soldier despite his weak physique. Deemed medically unfit countless times, his perseverance finally paid off when a top military scientist decided to give him a chance to prove himself. Impressed with his heart and character, they enlist him for a top secret research project to transform him into the perfect soldier.

*spoilers ahead* I liked the part where Steve Rogers threw his body over a hand grenade to protect his teammates, a classic NS story which stayed with me till this very day. It sounded so magnanimous, however, the movie didn't have a good build up to it. It felt like a quickie, it came before you knew it, and when you knew it, the scene had already passed you by.

Also liked the part where Steve Rogers' body became so chiseled after being injected with the super-soldier serum, or whatever you call it. There was a similar scene in Spider-Man, where Peter Parker woke up to a buff body after being bitten by the radioactive spider. However, in this case, the difference in physique was much greater and the result was more... impressive.

Captain America felt so god-like in this movie. However, I really wasn't too fond of his trademark weapon... a shield. A shield made up of a rare element that can deflect bullets without being scratched. There was nothing really awesome and drool-dripping about it. I'm aware that I can't blame the director for that since the character was as such and the director did good whatever he could to make the shield "feel" awesome... Perhaps a hint too much. *Major spoilers ahead* This is seen for the first scene where there's so much hooha about finding something in the middle of nowhere in the North Pole... and low and behold, it's shield. A little off and disconnected I felt.

I liked Red Skull's look but not so much the portrayal of Red Skull by Hugo Weaving. Hugo Weaving was stellar in the Matrix and V for Vendetta but somehow, his voice didn't quite fit in in this movie. I haven't heard Red Skull speak before, at least not that I can remember, but I would think Red Skull would have a coarser voice to match his burnt, volcanic red face.

While there weren't many scenes which blew me away, the ending did however pack a fine dose of immense anticipation for the long-awaited The Avengers. Do stay tuned for the after-credits scene and trailer for the The Avengers.

Possibly one of the weakest movies of The Avenger's franchise.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Ratings: 7.0/10

Film Class: A

Genre: Action

My biggest displeasure about this movie is how the trailer and title distorts the entire storyline and sets a wrong expectation about the film. Will Rodman (James Franco) is a scientist who have been working on a cure for Alzheimer's disease for the past 5 and a half years. After injecting a test ape with the drug, things got out of hand and the project was abolished. However, the test ape left a baby son behind... who was later named Caesar, the lead ape in this movie.

The drug increased Caesar's intelligence by leaps and bounds, but eventually, his inner nature took over... hence, the title, Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I'm not familiar with the Planet of the Apes franchise, all I know is that there a planet run by intelligent apes wearing sliver body armour. The trailer and the title is sure to veer one off the Eden's path.

Because, one, *major spoilers ahead*, the horde of apes, if that's what you call them, seen charging over a car-filled San Francisco Bridge in the trailer isn't a declaration of war on humans but of seeking freedom. And two, there's really no "rise" of the planet of the apes, the word "rise"as a revolting denotation to it. But no, the apes didn't form a horde to battle humans... all they did was to escape from our clutches.

There's something I'm sitting on the fence about. And that's the realism of the Apes. It appeals, yet somehow disturbs. I wouldn't say I liked it because of the realism and "human" essence seen in Caesar's mannerisms and eyes, and I wouldn't say I hated it because of how human they felt to me, with lotsa hair and almost seemed that an-ape-like face was plastered onto a human face. I thought Tom Felton's (evil teenage dude from Harry Potter) really did a great job in this movie because I started hating him almost immediately once he came on screen. His character was extremely detestable, but was so only because of his commendable portrayal.

John Lithgow did whatever he could with his limited screentime, though wasn't fantastic and the eye candy, Freida Pinto lit up the screen with her appearance. Unfortunately, in summary, there wasn't much screentime set aside for the "human" actors and there was a lot of emphasis on the CG-ed apes.

Was an engaging and heartfelt movie, occasional scares here and there but it lacked the "action-packness". In its place, there were many "cool" ape scenes though. Because of the nature of the apes, there's a part of me that was kept at the edge of my seats throughout the movie because I never know when Caesar or his other ape friends would "strike".

I enjoyed it, was a good watch but not one I would constantly be singing praises about. Sequel or not, I'm not spending sleepless nights thinking about it, if it comes, good, if it doesn't, so be it, wouldn't be too sad about it...