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)
