Year: 2012
Genre: Action
Director: Rob Cohen
Plot: Expert profiler Alex Cross matches wits with a sadistic killer, which eventually becomes personal.
The gist: This movie has one of, if not the worst taglines ever, and unfortunately the movie is pretty lame too, so much that only that tagline is worse than the film itself. So how did Rob Cohen, the guy who put Vin Diesel on the map screw this one up?
Well, it's not the plot, because that part is not too shabby. It's not the acting, because it's more or less decent. No, it's the execution of the script, and the script itself. Remember how the previous Alex Cross films starring Morgan Freeman were like? It was smart, thrilling and mysterious, like a good mystery novel should be. This film doesn't have any of that. It tries to be a good thriller, but the bad dialogue just won't let it.
On top of that, this film wastes the 'expert profiling skills' of Alex Cross after the first half and turns it into a revenge action flick, which would have been okay, if not for the bad camerawork (shaky and too close). And then there's the totally unnecessary subplot of co-worker relationships between Edward Burns and Rachel Nichols' characters, which didn't add anything to the film.
With a lack of surprises, bad cinematography and lame dialogue, this film wasted nearly every potential it had.
The good: Tyler Perry at least tries to make Alex Cross come off as a serious guy. It's unfortunate he doesn't have Freeman's charisma, because if he wasn't so chubby, he actually resembles him a little. But he's decent at least. Matthew Fox fares a bit better as the villain, but the bad lines he was given just stops short of making him memorable.
The bad: Rachel Nichols was totally wasted here. If she was written out of the film, it'd still be the same. Jean Reno was laughable in his role here. There is one scene where he walks Cross to a park outside to talk, then decides not to give him information, resulting in Cross leaving. Now wasn't that a waste of a scene? Add also the stuff above (bad camerawork, bad lines, bad subplots etc)
Verdict: It had every potential to be a solid thriller, but it fails to excite or intrigue. Pass on this if you see it. (2.5/5)
Year: 2012
Genre: Thriller, drama
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Plot: The true account of the 10 year manhunt for Osama bin Laden, from the 9/11 attacks to his death at the hands of SEAL Team 6 in 2011.
The gist: Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal present a slightly fictionalised but mostly true account of the events that led to Osama bin Laden's death, from the September 11 attacks to his death in May 2011.
What Bigelow and Boal show to us are intelligence activities carried out by the CIA to procure information as to Osama's whereabouts, which includes torture interrogation, top secret meetings and the like, while in between we bear witness to the various terrorist attacks around the globe.
The person at the centre of these activities is Maya, a young but brilliant CIA officer who digs up all sorts of information to find informants that either know Osama or know his whereabouts. However she has problems convincing her superiors that whatever information she gets is reliable, due to the fact that most of them are based on her opinions and not backed up with solid facts.
As we all know, eventually they get Osama in a well protected house in Pakistan, in a well shot sequence that although looks rather dark, feels authentic.
The good: Jessica Chastain puts in an excellent performance as Maya, who has to do whatever it takes, from attending uncomfortable interrogation sessions to fighting her superiors in order to see the mission to its end. Jason Clarke, Jennifer Ehle, Joel Edgerton, Kyle Chandler and the late James Gandolfini also provide solid work as the supporting cast. Kudos also to the technical crew for making the entire film seem real. Production design and cinematography, and music too are all on point.
The bad: The film seems too long at times, as Bigelow tries too hard too include a lot of information, some of which may seem too difficult for the general viewer to follow or understand.
Verdict: It's a solid true story film, which might not be everyone's cup of tea. But all the same, I'd say it's worth checking out. (3.5/5)
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)
