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)
Year: 1992
Genre: Adventure / romance
Director: Michael Mann
Plot: Three members of a dying Indian tribe find themselves caught up in the French Indian war when they come to the aid of a British colonel's two daughters.
The gist: This film by Michael Mann was supposed to be three hours long, but was edited to two hours much to his disappointment. As a result, the film feels incomplete as certain characters' motives are unclear.
But on a whole, the film is an interesting look at the conflict between white colonists and the natives. Day-Lewis plays Hawkeye, a white man raised by natives as one of their own since he was an infant, so he is more like them than his own people. He gets romantically involved with a British colonel's daughter, played by Madeleine Stowe, as he attempt to protect her from the French and their Mohawk guide (played by famous Native American actor Wes Studi).
The good: Daniel Day-Lewis, the best method actor in the world, is solid as the lead here, with Stowe providing solid support as his love interest. The cinematography, music score and production design are also top notch.
The bad: The above mentioned editing, which left the film rather confusing at times. The romance between Day-Lewis and Stowe, as well as his brother and Stowe's sister are barely explored, which makes it hardly convincing. The climax is also rather disappointing, at least I thought it was.
Verdict: A not so epic adventure romance film which could have been so much more if the studios had put more faith in its director. (3/5)
Year: 2011
Genre: Action
Director: John Singleton
Plot: A teenager discovers that the couple who raised him aren't his real parents, right before they are gunned down by mysterious folks, who plan on using him to get to his real father.
The gist: Abduction is basically an attempt to create a younger version of Jason Bourne, minus the amnesia stuff. Taylor Lautner plays Nathan, a kid who has to figure out who is after him and what they want with him, while dragging the lovely Lily Collins along.
This film on a whole is a strict, by the numbers thriller where nearly everything is stuff you've already seen someplace else, and executed better elsewhere too.
The good: Lautner, to his credit, actually does better here than being Jacob Black in the Twilight films, even though Nathan is almost a carbon copy of Jacob. What makes him better here is that he isn't so annoying. And Lily Collins is always nice to look at, so that's a plus.
The bad: The other more established actors like Sigourney Weaver, Jason Isaacs, Alfred Molina and Maria Bello are stuck being the supporting cast, which is a huge waste of their talent. This film is probably a paycheck gig for them. The action sequences are mostly dull, though the fight scene between Lautner and a bad guy in a train cabin isn't too bad. The climax is non existent and the plot too predictable.
Verdict: I probably tolerated this film better than most people, but I still wouldn't recommend it. You're better off watching the Bourne films. (2.5/5)
Year: 2000
Genre: Mystery / Drama
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Plot: The only survivor of a horrific train crash tries to figure out why he survived with the help of an eccentric comic book collector.
The gist: This film is M Night Shyamalan's tribute to comic book heroes, and it's clear he went to great lengths to make it stand out. Like most of his work, Unbreakable is mostly quiet and deliberately slow, but it never really gets dull, which is commendable.
Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson play off each other very well, the former as a security guard with marriage problems and the latter as a strange man with a rare condition revolving around brittle bones. Together they lead the story on discovering each other's identities, the answer to that being the obligatory Shyamalan twist.
The good: The cast perform very well. Besides Willis and Jackson, special mention goes to Robin Wright and Spencer Treat Clark as Willis' wife and son respectively. Credit must also be given to Eduardo Serra for his great camerawork, like using reflections every now and then to focus on his performers, as well as using contrasting colors to differentiate between certain people.
The bad: If you attempt to compare this to The Sixth Sense, you'll find this film a bit wanting. It is well made, but falls a bit short to that pioneering Shyamalan classic.
Verdict: Unbreakable is a solid film that will keep you engaged if you let it do so. (3.5/5)
Year: 2011
Genre: Drama
Director: George Clooney
Plot: A young assistant campaign manager for a potentially promising presidential candidate gets into serious trouble after one mistake sinks him deep into the world of dirty politics.
The gist: In general I hate politics because of what it represents and how it is run. But even so, I found The Ides Of March a brilliant film that focuses on how low political backstabbing can get, and how some people would do anything to nail a victory in an election.
George Clooney stars and directs this film, which sees him in a supporting role to Ryan Gosling's character. Gosling plays an ambitious assistant to Clooney's campaign manager, who finds his world turned upside down when he makes an error that questions his loyalty to his bosses. It then follows how he has to go as low as his opponents to regain his position.
Clooney does a great job keeping the pace tight and making sure everything flows smoothly. It may be a drama but there is nary a dull moment here.
The good: The cast is awesome. Gosling and Clooney are great, so are Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti in their roles as opposing campaign managers. Evan Rachel Wood has great chemistry with Gosling as a junior staffer who gets involved with him, which plays into the center plot. Clooney also deserves credit for his firm direction and making the film seem authentic, like it really is election season.
The bad: Marisa Tomei and Jeffrey Wright are underused, but they play their parts well enough. Other than that, I can't think of anything else.
Verdict: It's a solid film about politics and it is entertaining enough even for those who don't like politics or elections. (4/5)
