Year: 1997
Genre: Drama
Director: Majid Majidi
Plot: After a young boy loses his sister's shoes, he attempts to keep it a secret from his parents by sharing his own shoes with her until he can find her a new pair.
The gist: This was Iran's official entry for Best Foreign Film at the 1998 Oscars, where it lost to Roberto Benigni's Life Is Beautiful. I haven't seen Benigni's film yet, but I must say this Iranian movie is certainly worthy of winning that award.
Children Of Heaven is solid and undeniable proof that one does not require a great plot or a huge budget to make an incredible film. Majid Majidi's film is as simple as it can be, but it's brilliant and captivating from start to finish. I was sucked it within the first five minutes as I watched Ali, a poor 9 year old boy lose his younger sister's shoes while buying potatoes from a grocer.
Ali and his sister Zahra then hatch a plan: share his shoes. She wears them to school in the morning, then she will quickly return them to him so he can use them for his classes in the afternoon. The plan doesn't work that well because no matter how fast he runs, he always arrives late and gets in trouble with the principal. Then an opportunity comes along when his school announces a long distance race where the third prize winner gets a pair of shoes. Can Ali win the shoes for Zahra?
The film is just lovely as it explores the life of poor Iranians in Tehran without going into melodrama. Ali and Zahra's family are obviously poor, judging from their inability to pay the rent and other monetary hurdles, but Majidi doesn't dwell on these, instead focusing on how the siblings live their everyday lives despite their hardship, and even when times are tough, they are essentially happy, with only the missing shoes being a problem.
Even though the race part of the plot only comes at the final third of the film, Majidi makes every second of his film count. From Ali assisting his father to find people to hire them for gardening, to him and Zahra spending time in school learning, to the two siblings having fun blowing bubbles...it's all splendidly executed and never feels out of place.
The good: Amir Farrokh Hashemian and Bahare Seddiqi (as Ali and Zahra respectively) are so young at the time they made the film, but they're both excellent and put a smile on my face nearly every time they're on screen. The simplistic plot, perfect execution and fine acting all around make this a crowd pleaser for sure.
The bad: Little things, like wardrobe (strange how Ali and Zahra wear the same clothes all the time. I know they're poor, but not that poor) and the slightly abrupt ending. But it is far from enough to ruin what is already a great film.
Verdict: This is by far one of the best films I've ever seen, period. Anyone of any age can appreciate this wonderful tale. Highly recommended. (4.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Horror
Directors: Henry Joost & Ariel Schulman
Plot: Five years after the events of PA2, a family starts having strange occurrences when Katie and a mysterious boy move in across the street from them.
The gist: At this point, the Paranormal Activity films have lost their freshness and merely using the found footage technique to depict scares just isn't working that well now.
The stillness of a camera recording the goings on while everyone is asleep may still have some scare factor, but this fourth instalment kinda ruins the proceedings by not only repeating old tricks (stuff moving around by itself) but also featuring rather silly characters as the victims.
The one thing that the directors did differently from the film's previous directors is the use of laptop cameras instead of standard cameras to record the goings on. It's smart in a way, and the use of infrared for the hall shots were cool too. But it's not enough to make this better than what came before.
The good: Kathryn Newton puts in a convincing performance as main protagonist Alex, who like the previous films' protagonists, have to make others believe something weird is happening. Katie Featherston is still creepy in a way, though the idea of her being exceptionally stealthy is still unexplained.
The bad: Alex's parents are pretty dumb in my opinion, same as the non-believers from the earlier instalments. Some of the weird stuff that happens were just as stupid (the knife scene comes to mind). And like all PA films, there's always someone running with a camera recording when the shit hits the fan. I know it's so the audience can follow through, but it still doesn't make sense.
Verdict: Definitely losing its momentum compared to how the first PA began. There's more of these films next year, so they better step up, or just stop already. (2.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Horror thriller
Director: Mark Tonderai
Plot: A teenage girl and her mother move into a small town, living not far from a house where the family that stayed there had been murdered. The girl befriends the boy who was the sole survivor of the incident, and soon learns he is harboring a secret about that night.
The gist: Don't let it fool you. House At The End Of The Street might be marketed as a horror film of sorts, but it's actually more like a psychological thriller, and unfortunately a boring one at that.
Jennifer Lawrence is Elissa, who moves into this small town with her mother (Elisabeth Shue) and live near the house where its inhabitants were killed by a family member recently. Elissa befriends Ryan, the boy whose family was killed in that house, despite warnings from her mother and everyone else. Ryan seems like a good guy, but we all know he's hiding something.
The script doesn't give the actors much to do as they go about their business, causing the story to develop way too slowly. It'd be nice to have a few scares here and there, but the pedestrian plot doesn't allow that to happen. In the end, it turns out to be like a teenage TV show episode with a couple of twists.
The good: Lawrence at least tries hard to make her character stand out. Her acting is probably the best thing about this film. And I must admit, some of the twists were good, though not mind blowing.
The bad: Max Theriot turns in a dull performance here, looking as bored as the film itself. The near total lack of suspense didn't help at all either.
Verdict: It's not horrible, but much too dull to sit through. You're better off watching Jennifer Lawrence somewhere else. (2.5/5)
Year: 1968
Genre: Western
Director: Sergio Leone
Plot: A harmonica playing gunslinger and a desperado team up to protect a widow from a hitman who works for a railroad owner wanting to acquire her land.
The gist: In the IMDb top 250 films, this is number 23. As a western, it has all the classic elements. A hero or two. A bad guy. Quickdraw showdowns. Stuff about honor. And lots of staring and contemplating.
If you're the kind of person who doesn't enjoy things taking their own sweet time unfolding, then this film really isn't for you. As for me, I'm kinda on the fence in that regard.
For instance, I can appreciate the opening scene at the train station where Charles Bronson's character is introduced. Nicely set up, looks pretty cool. But some of the other scenes take a bit too long to sit through, and a bit of editing would have helped.
Nevertheless, westerns are usually meant to be experienced rather than simply watched. Once Upon A Time In The West is a solid member of its genre, thanks to fine performances from the leads and great cinematography and score to go with it.
The good: Bronson and Jason Robards are great in their roles as the two heroes in question, while Henry Fonda is equally adept as the villain. I personally liked the fact that there are different music scores each time the three men and Claudia Cardinale's character appear on screen. The way the three men are each introduced in the film are cool too.
The bad: As mentioned, the editing could be improved somewhat.And there were a few times when I didn't understand why some of the characters did or didn't do certain things.
Verdict: It's not meant for people with a low level of patience. But if you let it, this film will entertain you, and give you a great example of a spaghetti western. (3.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Drama
Director: Christian Petzold
Plot: For wanting to defect to West Germany, an East German doctor is banished to a provincial hospital and kept under the watchful eye of the Stasi and a fellow doctor they hired. Though she secretly plans to run away with her lover to the west, she starts to change as she strikes up a friendship with the said doctor.
The gist: Barbara is Germany's official submission to the Oscars this year, but it did not make the final list.
Set in 1980 before unification, the film focuses on Barbara Wolff, a doctor who is banished to a hospital by the countryside for applying to leave to West Germany. The Stasi (German secret police) keep close watch over her and has Dr. Andre, a physician who works at the hospital, to monitor her and report to them.
Andre however isn't just an errand boy, as he sympathises with her and tries to befriend her. She keeps him at arm's length knowing whom he represents, but slowly warms up to him as they spend more time working together. At the same time, Barbara secretly meets with her lover from the west and plans to run away with him.
Though the film largely is about Barbara and her daily activities, the real heart of the film is her friendship with Andre, and proves to be the most meaningful thing in this story. From sharing their pasts to assisting each other with patients, they slowly but surely become close, even when their emotions don't always come forth.
Credit should be given to director Christian Petzold and the crew for wonderfully authentic set design and camerawork. The windy countryside, old buildings and equally vintage bicycles successfully bring the film to life.
The good: Nina Hoss and Ronald Zehrfeld put in subtle performances as Barbara and Andre respectively, but it works. Their quiet approach to the characters allows them to present their repressed emotions and get the message across at the same time without theatrics. As mentioned, the technical aspects are well executed also.
The bad: The pace can be rather slow at times. The rather abrupt ending also didn't help matters. I felt that the story could have used a bit more time to develop from the point it ended.
Verdict: It's a solid drama that convincingly shows the situation in Germany back then by putting a story between two people in the middle of it. It's not perfect but it works somehow. (3.5/5)
Year: 2003
Genre: Horror thriller
Director: Pal Oie
Plot: The crew of a new reality TV show venture into the forest and spend a few nights in a cabin to prepare themselves before actual filming begins. Strange things start happening once they arrive, including the discovery of a dead body in the pond nearby.
The gist: This Norwegian film looks like a cross between The Cabin In The Woods and The Blair Witch Project, but still manages to maintain its own identity somewhat.
The plot is simple: a TV crew venture into the forest with no modern gear, in order to put themselves in the same shoes as the show's participants. They live together in the same cabin owned by the show's director. Everything's fine until they discover an abandoned tent near a pond, and subsequently a dead body in the water. The presence of a mysterious figure in the woods starts to spook them, but the director insists on staying put, even as he starts to show signs of losing his mind.
The filmmakers do a great job of using the forest itself as a character, and manipulating the darkness to compliment the feeling of fear that comes from being in the forest alone. The cast also perform to expectations.
The good: As mentioned, the cast are all great, especially Kristoffer Joner and Bjorn Floberg as Lasse, the chain smoker who doesn't enjoy being there at all and Gunnar, the director respectively. Cinematography, set design and lighting all work together beautifully to create the sense of dread of being in the dark forest.
The bad: The buildup is too slow. As a viewer, I wished the situation was far more tense than they had come up with. The script tries to build the suspense by having the crew argue and bicker, but they never really reach the breaking point. The final payoff was also weak.
Verdict: It's a decent thriller, but if it had capitalised on the opportunities it had made for itself, it would have been far better. (3/5)
Year: 2005
Genre: Sci-fi, action
Director: Joss Whedon
Plot: The crew of the spaceship Serenity must protect a girl with special powers from an assassin.
The gist: With Joss Whedon, you know you'll get plenty of humour mixed with action, and that's what we get here. The best part is you don't have to be a fan of Firefly, the shortlived series this film is based on.
Nathan Fillion leads a small crew of a ship called Serenity, making a living by robbing banks. One of their own, a girl called River, is wanted by an evil federation. They send an assassin after her, prompting the crew to flee while investigating the reason why they want her in the first place.
The premise has a hint of Star Wars in it, added with some western elements. Joss Whedon does a great job in seamlessly blending action and humour together, making the film real easy and fun to sit through.
The good: Though Summer Glau is predictably impressive in the fight scenes, it is Nathan Fillion who scores as the captain of Serenity. The actors playing his crew members are also great in their roles. Chiwetel Ejiofor is awesome as the assassin sent after River. And as mentioned, the script and dialogue is brilliant.
The bad: Morena Baccarin is severely underused as Fillion's love interest. And as good as the humour is, Whedon overdoes it at times, as I felt certain scenes would have worked better without it.
Verdict: A very entertaining film overall, even for those who aren't familiar with Whedon's work. (3.5/5)
Year: 1995
Genre: Adventure thriller
Director: Frank Marshall
Plot: Two scientists, one bringing a gorilla back to its roots and another looking for a diamond, organize an expedition to Africa. There they encounter hostile forces in the form of unfriendly soldiers and violent creatures.
The gist: Jurassic Park was a huge hit back in the 90s and this film tried to cash in on that wave. But Jurassic Park this is not as it does not have the former's sense of awe, well written characters and excellent CGI.
Congo tells the story of two scientists who reluctantly team up to go to the African Congo, braving the hostile environment and mystery that awaits them. One is from a telecommunication company looking for a diamond as well as her ex-fiancee who lost contact mysteriously while the other wants to return his gorilla (who has the ability to speak using an electronic device) to the wild.
Of course, shit happens and their team has to do what it takes to survive and make it out alive.
The good: Laura Linney and Dylan Walsh are decent enough as the two scientists in question, though the best acting comes from Ernie Hudson as the charming guide who leads them into the jungle. Minor appearances by Bruce Campbell, Delroy Lindo and Joe Pantoliano are also worth mentioning.
The bad: The 'talking' gorilla is cool with me, but I don't know why the filmmakers decided to have it smoke a cigar and drink alcohol in the film. What the heck was that for? The CGI was rather lame and made the film feel dated. Tim Curry was too over the top as the treasure seeking philanthropist tagging along with them.
Verdict: It's a decent watch, but probably not memorable enough to warrant a second viewing. (3/5)
Year: 2011
Genre: Biography, drama
Director: Marc Forster
Plot: Based on the true story of Sam Childers, a reformed criminal who found God and dedicated his life to defending helpless children in Sudan.
The gist: Biographies can be a tricky genre to tackle, especially when certain liberties need to be taken. Now, I don't know if there were any such thing for this film, but the story of Sam Childers is important enough to be made into a movie so that the world can learn more about him.
Unfortunately the film that Marc Forster made isn't as solid as it should be. The key problem is the fact that Childers' crusade is still ongoing, so the story doesn't have a satisfactory conclusion. The only thing that Forster can do is highlight the Sudanese civil war and the children that suffer there, interwoven with Childers' personal battle as he fights to save as many kids as he can.
To that end, Gerard Butler does a fine job as Childers, balancing the act between preaching at his church and launching rockets at the LRA. Butler is the glue that holds this movie together.
The good: Butler is great. Michelle Monaghan is also good as his wife Lynn, projecting frustration whenever he gives more attention to his crusade than his own family.
The bad: The unsatisfactory ending. Michael Shannon is underused as Childers' troubled buddy. And I don't know about you, but Childers' transformation from drug dealer to born again Christian was way too easy. But then again, this film is more about the fight for Sudan.
Verdict: It's a decent biography of a determined and kind man, but I wish there was more to it than just that. (2.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Action
Director: Simon West
Plot: A recently released bank robber has to rescue his daughter, who's been kidnapped by his former partner. He has to rob another bank in 12 hours or she's dead.
The gist: Remember when Nicolas Cage and Simon West made a film called Con Air? It was over the top and ridiculous, but it was so much fun and I loved it.
Stolen is ridiculous too, but other than that, it's the total opposite of Con Air. It's stupid and dull, and marks yet another bad film project from Cage.
Cage plays a bank robber who's supposedly the smartest bank robber in the country (Really?), who destroyed the loot he took from a bank job after being cornered by the cops, and subsequently sent to jail. Eight years later, he comes out and tries to reconnect with his daughter, but before he can make amends for lost time, his old partner shows up and kidnaps her, and demands his share of the loot.
It's just laughable watching Cage run down the street when he's obviously in no shape to do so anymore. But what's even worse is seeing Josh Lucas wearing the worst wig of all time in an attempt to play a villain.
The film attempts to be smart but fails more often than not. One is having Danny Huston as the lead detective wear a hat, as if he was a wise old hound. But Morgan Freeman he ain't, as he is too easily fooled by Cage's character. The twists West tries to incorporate are either badly done or predictable.
The good: There's a decent car chase sequence at the film's opening 15 minutes, the key word being decent. There's a scene where Cage is speaking with a cab company owner with a Cajun accent, which was quite funny. Other than that, can't think of anything else here.
The bad: Josh Lucas wins the Worst Villain of the Year award. Does he seriously think he can be intimidating with a wig and a wooden leg, and the worst lines ever written? Then there's the dull plot, messy execution and badly conceived characters. Poor Malin Akerman had almost nothing to do here too.
Verdict: It's a bad movie. Go watch Con Air instead. (2/5)
Year: 2001
Genre: Romantic comedy
Director: Peter Chelsom
Plot: Two people who fall in love and separate on the same night attempt to find each other years later using clues they left behind.
The gist: Serendipity is defined as a fortunate accident or a pleasant surprise, as well as the name of the cafe where John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale's characters have coffee with each other after they meet. Although already attached to other people, they like each other a lot, so they leave their respective numbers on a dollar and a used book, and vow to find each other again if they rediscover the items someday.
Of course, being a romcom, the ending is already a foregone conclusion, but the fun is in getting there. Peter Chelsom keeps things moving briskly and inserts a lot of funny situations that are not over the top, and it works. It also helps a lot that his two leads are really charming and work well together, despite only sharing scenes at the beginning and end of the film.
The good: Cusack and Beckinsale are the perfect choices for the leads. Jeremy Piven shines as Cusack's best friend while Eugene Levy is pretty funny as the salesman who helps Cusack in getting information that he needs. The music is also to die for, my favorites being numbers from Annie Lennox and Evan & Jaron.
The bad: Predictability, obviously. Being a romcom, a lot of the stuff that happens is way too convenient. And why would they be attached to other people to be married if they're still pining for each other? I don't get that.
Verdict: I'm not a fan of romantic comedies, but I like this charming little film. (3.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Crime drama
Director: John Hillcoat
Plot: Based on the true story of the Bondurant brothers, who ran an illegal moonshine business during the Prohibition era in the 1930s.
The gist: This is one of those stories where the outlaws are the good guys and the lawmen are the villains. In this case, we follow the lives of the Bondurant brothers: Jack, Forrest and Howard, who make and sell illegal moonshine during the Prohibition era. They face a threat in the form of a corrupt lawman named Charlie Rakes, who wants a cut of their profits.
The story is solid but the way the story is told is rather weak. In the middle portion of the film, attention is diverted to the brothers' personal lives, where Jack courts the local priest's daughter while Forrest gets involved with their bar assistant, Maggie. Then we're suddenly shoved into the third act when Rakes steps back into the picture and a messy shootout becomes the film's climax. A bit more time spent on the story in the second half would really help.
The good: Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain and Guy Pearce all put in great work here. Hardy is a man of few words as Forrest, but he's intense as heck. Pearce is suitably slimy as Rakes while Chastain is magnetic and vulnerable as Maggie. Kudos also to Hillcoat and the crew for the authentic sets and music score.
The bad: Shia Labeouf tries his best but he can't shake off the Sam Witwicky persona. He's much better as Jack here than in Transformers though. Also the above mentioned weak storytelling, and Gary Oldman is totally wasted in the role of a mobster, he barely got five minutes of screen time.
Verdict: It's a decent historical crime drama, but there's plenty of room for improvement here. (3/5)
Year: 2008
Genre: Biography
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Plot: Loosely based on a true story about Michael Peterson, the most dangerous prisoner in Britain, who takes on the name Charles Bronson while being in solitary confinement.
The gist: Halfway through this film, I didn't understand what the heck I was watching, and even now I don't fully understand it. Perhaps I felt that there's a wide gaping hole in it that needs to be filled, even though most critics are happy enough to leave the film as it is.
The film focuses on one Michael Peterson, who although had a good upbringing, gets into fights and violent scraps and then sentenced to prison. In prison, he continues this behavior and earns a reputation for being so dangerous, he gets transferred again and again, and gets sent back to jail not long after his release.
Thing is, the filmmakers never explained his motivations for getting into fights. We see Peterson, who renames himself Charles Bronson (after the actor) attack other people, inmates and guards alike, without provocation. But why? Is he crazy or does he love fighting? Who knows? Nicolas Winding Refn didn't bother to say so, perhaps because that's not the kind of film he's going for. I get that, but still, a bit of substance would be nice. Instead, we get Bronson presenting his story to an audience on stage, in a satiric manner, which is a unique touch, but for me it's not enough.
The good: At least Tom Hardy is excellent in the role. Now, I don't know how the real Bronson was like, but Hardy obviously worked hard to get into the shape required for the role (i.e. bulky) and he is intimidating even when he smiles. He owns the role, that is for certain.
The bad: A lack of substance on the man's motivations make the film hard to comprehend at times. There were several attempts by Refn to humanise the guy, but it's not enough to help me understand the man.
Verdict: If you want a thorough story on Bronson, go to Wikipedia. This film doesn't quite answer the question on him, preferring to make a satire out of his character. Hardy's the best reason to see this, but it's frustrating to watch this film on a whole. (2.5/5)
Year: 1996
Genre: Drama thriller
Director: Tony Scott
Plot: A down on his luck knife salesman becomes obsessed with an all star baseball player who is struggling to live up to his expensive price tag.
The gist: I almost had no idea that the late Tony Scott directed this thriller. It's not as famous as his other works like Top Gun, Man On Fire and Enemy Of the State, but it's quite good on its own actually.
So here we have Gil Renard, a knife salesman who is having a hard time getting his life together. He's having trouble meeting his sales numbers, he's not being a good enough father to his young son and his ex-wife keeps trying to stop him from seeing his kid. Baseball is the only thing he loves that he can fall back on, and in that regard, he continues to support the Giants' all star player Bobby Rayburn, despite the guy having a hard time living up to his reputation.
Bobby himself isn't the most likable of people, thinking that he is as good as his agent says he is. That is until he finally gets back on track, which may or may not have something to do with Gil's actions. As a fan, Gil is willing to do anything to see Bobby succeed, but how far will he go?
The script is solid for the most part, allowing both Robert DeNiro and Wesley Snipes to shine equally. The best part is you don't have to be a fan of baseball to understand this movie.
Special mention must be made to the film's opening and ending sequences; the former being a poem about one's love for baseball voiced by DeNiro, the latter a glimpse of old photos while a song by Terence Trent D'arby hauntingly plays.
The good: DeNiro and Snipes are great in their roles as Gil and Bobby. DeNiro gains the audience's sympathy despite being the antagonist here, playing a tragic character who goes off the deep end. Snipes is pretty good in a non-action role for once, showing some good acting chops. Ellen Barkin and John Leguizamo provide some nice support as well.
The bad: The film drags from time to time, so some tighter editing would have been nice.
Verdict: It's an underrated thriller that deserves at least one watch. (3.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Horror thriller
Director: David Brooks
Plot: Three people are trapped in an ATM booth late at night by a stalker.
The gist: You know those movies where the trailer makes the movie look better than it actually is? This is definitely one of them.
So here we have three friends; two guys and a girl, stopping by the ATM late at night to make a withdrawal, only to find a guy standing between the booth and their car. They don't know why he's there, only sensing that he's trouble, which is confirmed when a passerby shows up and quickly gets killed by the man.
The film is sort of in the tone of Frozen (three kids stuck on a chairlift at a ski resort), except that film was quite believable. ATM is implausible and hopelessly stupid. You won't believe the number of bad decisions these three people make while being stuck in there, or even before they get there, to be honest.
For instance, why park the car far away from the booth? Why wait for the right moment to make a run for it when they outnumber him three to one? Why not fight back instead of freezing to death in the booth? The fact that the killer leaves the front of the booth several times to tamper with something or execute his next move would have given them a chance to run, but they never do. The audience ends up figuring out a dozen ways to deal with this problem before the three of them do.
The director is trying to make this a smart thriller, judging by how the film ends, but it just doesn't work. I pity the three actors who must have taken this gig for a paycheck.
The good: The best thing actually is the playing of Silent Night (the film is set during Christmas season) during the film's credits. It's extremely slowed down to the point of creepiness, which suits the tone they were going for. And okay, for some moments of the film, the three actors were decent enough.
The bad: The script obviously. I lost count the number of times the three friends said things like "What's he doing?" or "What's happening?" or "What do we do?". The stupid decisions they make, like tampering with the ATM or their reaction to the first person who walks into the booth after it begins.....it's unbelievable.
Verdict: It's bad. It's bad enough to make someone curious enough to see it, but I wouldn't waste 90 minutes on this again. (2/5)
Year: 1995
Genre: Suspense thriller
Director: John Badham
Plot: An accountant who has just arrived in Los Angeles is forced by two people to kill the Governor or they will kill his daughter.
The gist: I remember this film when it first came out at the theatres back in 1995. The film's main selling point was the whole thing taking place in real time. But truth be told, now that I've seen it again, that fact isn't so significant anymore.
What is significant is watching Johnny Depp, way before he became the star he is now, play an everyman forced into a tough situation. It's a far cry from being Jack Sparrow, the Mad Hatter or Willy Wonka, but he pulls it off nicely. He shares great rapport with Christopher Walken, who is always reliable as a villain. Walken pretty much plays it the way he usually does, but it never gets old.
Overall the suspense isn't edge of your seat stuff, but the film makes up for it with solid performances from the cast.
The good: Depp and Walken shine here, and so does Charles S. Dutton as a shoe shine man who becomes Depp's only ally. Roma Maffia also deserves mention as Walken's accomplice, though she hasn't got much to do here.
The bad: The movie's main flaw is logic. I recall this question being asked back then: why didn't these guys do the assassination themselves instead of forcing a stranger to pull the trigger? It probably would have been easier this way. Another stretch of logic is watching Depp trying all sorts of ways to get help, only to be foiled by Walken again and again. It's noted that Walken is always about a stone's throw away from Depp when this happens, but it seems like he has ESP or something, because his timing is always perfect. And what's with the "fool the audience" fantasy sequence? I didn't buy it when it happened, and I don't think anyone would have. It was just weird.
Verdict: It's a decent thriller. It's watchable thanks to the cast's fine performances, but the logic of the whole plot needs some fine tuning. (3/5)
Year: 2011
Genre: Adventure, fantasy
Director: Martin Scorsese
Plot: In 1930s Paris, a young orphan boy tries to solve the mystery of a mechanical automaton left behind by his late father, and in the process helps an old man rediscover his love for his work.
The gist: It's a known fact that Martin Scorsese loves films very much, to the point that he makes a lot of effort to preserve movies in an archive over the years. After watching Hugo, I realised that this film represents Scorsese's passion for not just his work, but the entire concept of films and filmmaking.
You see, Hugo tells the story of Georges Melies, a film director whose unique work was long forgotten and destroyed, until a young boy named Hugo goes on an adventure which results in the rediscovery of what was once thought lost.
On the surface, it might seem like a magical fantasy kind of film, but Scorsese gives the film a lot of dramatic moments which grounds it while balancing it with the lighter and funnier parts. It's a sharp turn from what we're accustomed to from him, but this is proof that he can do something besides biopics and gangster flicks.
The good: Performances are excellent all around. Asa Butterfield and Chloe Moretz do a great job as Hugo and his friend Isabelle respectively. Ben Kingsley puts in an understated performance as George Melies, but it works. Sacha Baron Cohen is pretty much himself as the station inspector pursuing Hugo. The cinematography and music are also very well done, and the vibrant colours visible throughout makes the entire film stand out.
The bad: The subplot about Cohen trying to get the attention of a florist played by Emily Mortimer was distracting and unnecessary.
Verdict: Hugo is very entertaining and highly recommended for true fans of the movies. (4/5)
Year: 1995
Genre: Thriller
Director: David Fincher
Plot: Two detectives, one retiring, the other relatively inexperienced, team up to stop a serial killer whose murders are based on the seven deadly sins.
The gist: If the serial killer genre had a yardstick for quality, this film would be it. David Fincher and writer Andrew Kevin Walker create a masterpiece that is still strong and unparalleled till today.
The plot is simple: two cops with different approaches have to work together to stop a sadistic killer. But even then, it's much more than that. The filmmakers let us see the dark and cruel world they both live in, a nameless city that has nearly endless rain. The older cop, Somerset is a tired man, but wise to a tee, trying his best to guide the younger cop Mills in order to catch a brilliant killer who is always a step ahead of them.
The film has a methodical pace but it never drags. There is a purpose to almost every scene, as each clue leads to another until it ends on a surprising finale.
The good: Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman are excellent in their roles. Pitt isn't the mature actor he is now when he did this film, yet he's perfect as the brash Mills and ends up being very likable. Freeman as usual brings his screen presence as Somerset, being wise enough to not want to be a cop any longer than he has to, yet smart enough to do his job right. He's the heart of the film. Gwyneth Paltrow lends some nice support as Mills' wife, and pretty to look at since she's still young here. Kevin Spacey is great as the killer, John Doe. Everything else technical like lighting, cinematography, set design and editing are all perfect. The opening credit sequence, designed by Kyle Cooper, remains one of, if not the best sequences I've ever seen.
The bad: I can't think of any. It's that good.
Verdict: It's earned its right to be Imdb's 22nd best film and probably one of the best films of the 90s. If you haven't seen this yet, you need to. Recommended. (4.5/5)
Year: 2011
Genre: Thriller / Drama / Mystery
Director: David Fincher
Plot: A disgraced journalist teams up with a computer hacker to investigate the disappearance of a rich man's grandniece 40 years ago.
The gist: I had been looking forward to this film for a while now. I haven't read the book, so I can't say how faithful David Fincher's adaptation really is, but it's clear that he tried his best to put in as much from the book as he could. In fact, it felt like he tried to put in everything and as a result, the film moves really fast until at times it felt like the potential emotional impact from certain scenes were lost.
I'm kinda surprised that the film won best editing at the Oscars because it felt like it could use some work here. No doubt that the editing team did a great job on The Social Network prior to this, but here this kind of editing style hurt the film a bit. It would have been better if Fincher left out some unnecessary scenes in favor of letting some of the quieter, emotional moments simmer.
But I will commend Rooney Mara and Daniel Craig for their stellar performances here. Craig is very different from his tough guy Bond role here while Mara is unrecognizable as Lisbeth Salander, and she is the real central character, doing so well in getting herself noticed by the audience despite turning away from the camera so often. She is a revelation in this film.
The mystery the duo are investigating is fascinating, though this is more of a whodunit than an actual serial killer thriller, so if you're looking for more of the latter, you won't find it.
The good: Craig is great in a nice change from being James Bond and Mara is excellent. The opening credit sequence is awesome, almost like a Bond film kind of sequence. The setting of winter in Sweden is very fitting for the film as it contributes to the dark tone of the story.
The bad: The pace needs to slow down a bit, with some better editing. The climax is nearly non existent, plus the relationship between Craig and Mara develops too rapidly to be credible.
Verdict: It's flawed but still a solid watch, thanks to Craig and Mara. (3.5/5)
Year: 2005
Genre: Action / Horror
Director: Francis Lawrence
Plot: A supernatural detective tries to stop evil forces from unleashing hell on earth.
The gist: Constantine is based on DC Comics book Hellblazer, where the lead character is John Constantine, a chain smoking, cynical detective who fights demons.
Some will take exception to the fact that Keanu Reeves was given the role because the character is actually British, but for me, that's not really the problem. The problem is Keanu's acting, which isn't up to mark.
Anyway, the film follows Constantine as he teams up with a detective played by Rachel Weisz, who is investigating her twin sister's death. The duo come across a plan by certain parties who want to unleash hell on earth.
To his credit, Francis Lawrence keeps the film engaging from start to finish, throwing all sorts of interesting stuff into the plot and making them all stick, such as angels, demons, magic weapons, possession, exorcisms and such. It could have potentially backfired but Lawrence keeps it together firmly.
The good: Weisz and the supporting cast all deliver solid performances. Weisz in particular is believable. Peter Stormare damn near steals the show as Satan himself. Out of all the supporting roles he's had over the years, this is surely his best one ever. The camerawork is also solid, and the film's version of hell is awesome.
The bad: Reeves' acting, which is as wooden as when he was Neo. He does have his moments, but it's not nearly enough. Some of the CGI was kinda choppy, but most of the time you wouldn't notice it.
Verdict: It's an entertaining film, though it could be better if they went with a slightly darker approach. But I love it anyway. (4/5)
P.S.: Stay till the end credits finish for one last scene.
Year: 2010
Genre: Horror
Director: Daniel Stamm
Plot: A former preacher turned exorcist turned possession debunker takes a film crew with him to perform a fake exorcism on a girl who thinks she is possessed, but they get more than they bargained for.
The gist: This is yet another horror flick that utilises the found footage method, and for the most part it does decent enough.
Director Daniel Stamm introduces our exorcist Reverend Cotton Marcus in a documentary like manner, featuring his background in the church, his family and his work etc. and this presentation works quite convincingly. Marcus then tells us about this girl named Nell which he's going to visit and perform an exorcism on, and show that with a little sleight of hand, he can convince supposedly possessed people that they are free from demons.
Naturally, things go wrong and it's fun to watch Marcus and the film crew find themselves in trouble, and the camera never quite stops rolling. As with most films of this ilk, we are left wondering why that is. But the thing is, the film pretty much sustains its momentum until the final five minutes, when it makes a left turn and becomes something different, and that really hurt the overall result.
The good: Performances are solid all around. Patrick Fabian and Ashley Bell are great in their roles as Marcus and Nell respectively. The presented footage is also well edited, it never feels boring.
The bad: The last five minutes which kinda ruined the momentum it had built up to then. Also the aforementioned camera that just keep rolling no matter what.
Verdict: If not for that ending, The Last Exorcism would have been a great and scary horror film. Right now it's just an average scary horror film. (3/5)
Year: 1999
Genre: Horror
Directors: Daniel Myrick & Eduardo Sanchez
Plot: Three film students get lost in the woods while trying to film a documentary. This is their footage.
The gist: The Blair Witch Project is probably the first film to utilize the 'found footage' method of horror. Directors Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez, as well as the three kids playing the lost students do a splendid job making things as spontaneous as possible, thereby making the film feel very real.
The footage we see follows the three kids: Heather, Joshua and Michael interview some local folk before going off into the woods and then subsequently not knowing where they are. Their fear and hopelessness comes off very well, as the audience gets a first hand experience of what it's like being lost with no one to call for help.
The real horror actually sets in within the final 20 minutes of the film, but the build up to that is pretty effective, with the three kids putting in a genuinely solid performance and playing well off each other.
The good: The performances from all three kids, plus the practical way of filming this movie makes it very effective. The closing moments of the film is pretty heart pounding.
The bad: If you're expecting something scary happening every now and then, you might end up being a bit bored. The first quarter of the film might feel a bit slow, but things pick up once they hit the woods. (There is one minor plothole that I have an issue with, but I won't spoil it)
Verdict: A solid horror flick that started the 'found footage' genre, and ought to be seen at least once. (3.5/5)
Year: 1996
Genre: Thriller
Director: Stephen Hopkins
Plot: In 1898, an Irish engineer is tasked to build a bridge in Tsavo, Africa. His mission is hindered by a pair of lions that go on a killing spree, forcing him to team up with a gung-ho lion hunter to stop them.
The gist: The Ghost And The Darkness may be based on a true story, but there's a good chance some of the parts have been heavily fictionalised. Nevertheless, Stephen Hopkins manages to make his film an entertaining one.
Being set in mystical Africa is already an automatic advantage, since the country has great scenery and people. The plot of two lions, seemingly supernatural in nature terrorising the workers building the bridge, and the two men who must stop them, seems simplistic enough, but Hopkins keeps the pace steady and his lead characters interesting.
Michael Douglas as eccentric hunter Remington is a blast, but it's Val Kilmer who gets more screen time as the engineer Patterson, and ultimately the more heroic and human of the two. They make a great team on screen. John Kani provides some solid support as Patterson's assistant, Samuel.
The good: As mentioned, the scenery, the leads and Hopkins' direction.
The bad: The climax lacked some genuine thrills and feels a bit rushed. Douglas' character also seemed too bombastic at times, making it hard for the viewer to believe in him.
Verdict: It's not without flaws, but it's rather entertaining, even if you'd feel the film merely exaggerates the facts. (3.5/5)
Year: 2011
Genre: Thriller
Director: Rod Lurie
Plot: A screenwriter and his wife relocate to her hometown in the deep South so that he can work on his script. Their presence there ignites tension among the locals who dislike him and his city roots.
The gist: This film is a remake of the 1971 film starring Dustin Hoffman. I've never seen the original though. This version starts off fine, with James Marsden and Kate Bosworth being a believable couple. Marsden pulls off the city boy routine quite well actually.
However, as the story progresses, the film makes less and less sense. It doesn't make sense that Alexander Skarsgard's character, who is the main antagonist, seems like a regular guy who only seems mischievous on the outside, but for the most part seems calm and civilised. It doesn't make sense that other people, especially James Woods' coach character, seem more violent and prone to outbursts than Skarsgard. It doesn't make sense that Bosworth, in an attempt to spite her husband after an argument, would give the local boys a flash of her boobs. It makes even less sense that the climax of the film was triggered because Marsden and Bosworth were attempting to help someone instead of trying to get retribution for what the local boys did earlier. But then again this was also how the original played out (from what I've heard), so there.
The good: Bosworth is always nice to look at. Marsden is solid here in his performance as the city boy who is a fish out of water down south. Dominic Purcell is quite good as the retarded man Marsden and Bosworth try to protect. Some of the violence in the film was fun to watch, even though the set up wasn't always good (one involving a bear trap was awesome).
The bad: Skarsgard is too tame in this film, especially if you know what he's like in True Blood. The above mentioned senseless plot qualifies to be here too. Some parts of the film also feel draggy.
Verdict: It's underwhelming on a whole. Some creative violence is nice, but this film needs a lot of substance, because it barely has any. (2/5)
Year: 2011
Genre: Romantic comedy
Directors: Glenn Ficarra & John Requa
Plot: After his wife leaves him, a middle aged man runs into a good looking ladies man, who teaches him how to get back into the dating game.
The gist: To call this a rom-com is a bit inaccurate as it is quite unconventional in its approach, for instance there isn't a textbook guy and gal who need to be paired up by the end. In fact, this film focuses on the trials and tribulations of love from different points of view, and the hilarious messes that occur.
The filmmakers did a splendid job in coming up with a film that teaches a thing or two about love without being too preachy, and even manage to make it interesting to last till the final minute.
Steve Carell deserves credit for being the anchor of the film as the likable loser who has to find a way to make things right with his wife again. He has great chemistry with Ryan Gosling as the womaniser, who plays his part like it was second nature to him. The rest of the cast do well too, although a few don't really stand out.
The good: Most of the jokes are spot on, thanks to Carell's perfect comic timing and Gosling's charm. The plot is solid for the most part and the ending isn't run of the mill, which is good.
The bad: Some characters just didn't work that well, like Marisa Tomei's teacher role who has a one night stand with Carell, she was just too damn annoying. Kevin Bacon was also unnecessarily cast in a role that any other male actor could have done. And then there's the twist with Emma Stone's character in the third act that just wasn't executed well enough, not good enough for me to believe it was possible as the story moved to that point.
Verdict: Unlike the pretentious Closer, this film is a well made piece on romance and its pitfalls, and why we ought to fight for it anyway. (3.5/5)
