andydreamseeker's Reviews

Red Cliff II (2009)

8/10

The Point of War - A Review of Red Cliff II

6 February 2009

Red Cliff, the film by John Woo based on the epic battle of Romance of the Three Kingdoms is divided into two parts. While the first was engaging in its depiction of such historical characters in Cao Cao, Zhuge Liang and Zhou Yu, the second is all about war itself, which can be a little daunting to some. But that is just how war is.

You see, war is not about a spontaneous fight between two opposing parties. It has nothing to do with sword wielding 'cling clang' or battle cries and fistfights. The distinction has to be made since war is by far a larger context than a battle, although war itself consists many. In Red Cliff II we will see what is at play when war is raged. It cannot be pretty can it? But it can as this is the romanticized version of history and on screen John Woo made it even prettier.

The cast is strong with Tony Leung Chiu-wai as viceroy Zhou Yu, Takeshi Kaneshiro as adviser Zhuge Liang and Zhang Fengyi as Cao Cao, to name just a few. The list is long. A good cast will more often than not up the aesthetical appeal to a movie. For the female audience, Tony Leung charms with his manly portrayal of Zhou Yu, and Takeshi Kaneshiro is always a pleasure to watch as he liven every scene with wit and humor. For the male audience, it is the childlike yet seriousness of Zhao Wei as Sun Shangxiang, and Lin Chi-ling's poise and compassion as Xiao Qiao that allures.

But can war really be pretty? If you think that killing each other is a good way to express beauty then perhaps you can be on the same page as the tyranny Cao Cao. In part 1, where the emphasis of battle was on land with a very elaborate tactic devised by Zhuge Liang, here in part 2 we witness the battle at sea, physically and psychologically.

Back to the main topic of war, it is crucial that victory must be sorted as numerous lives are heavily at stake, whether or not these lives are valued or not, be they as added numbers or as friends. In war the emphasis is on strategies and tactics to win. And on strategies and tactics, I guess we no doubt have to consult Sun Tzu's The Art of War and also take reference to The 36 Stratagems.

I can refer that the epic battle of Red Cliff has two points that stood out when referenced to The Art of War and that is The Attack By Fire and The Use Of Spies.

Recorded in the 36 stratagems is the use of the enemy's own spy to sow discord in the enemy's camp by Zhou Yu. This famous move is of correlation to The Art of War where it is stated as having converted spies, getting hold of the enemy's spies and using them for our own purposes. In war all can be done, there can be no holds barred because any weakness can be exploited by the enemy. Zhou Yu can be said to have brilliantly disposed off of Cao Cao's main strategic threat because Cao Cao slain both his most dependable generals who are most versed in sea battles.

When 50,000 has to fight 200,000, who could blame Zhou Yu for such tactics, especially when Cao Cao first provoked by sending dead soldiers across to Zhou Yu's side on wooden rafts, knowing that disease spread through this mean can greatly weaken his enemy.

The other account decisive of the battle of Red Cliff is the Chain Strategem, although modified by John Woo in its depiction, with the key in Lin Chi-ling's character, Xiao Qiao.

It is interesting to sit through 141 minutes witnessing a romanticized version of John Woo's Red Cliff. Personally I didn't feel that it was long, however to some who wanted to see a Lord of the Ring's type battle on screen could be disappointed.

Sun Tzu's The Art of War states that the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple before the war is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but a few calculations before hand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.

The point of war however is that in war everybody loses. This should be what John Woo's Red Cliff is trying to tell us. I agree wholeheartedly with water in my eyes.

42 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ponyo (2008)

7/10

Return to Innocence - A Review of Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea

6 February 2009

Said to be inspired from Disney's The Little Mermaid, Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea is Japanese animation master, Hayao Miyazaki's next big work after the well-received Spirited Away in 2001 and Howl's Moving Castle in 2004. In Ponyo, his signature style of animating fantasy realms and children characters are on display once again.

Sosuke (Hiroki Doi), the boy lead in the film discovers a 'goldfish' trapped in a glass jar while playing by the seaside below the cliff. He stays with his mum, Lisa (Tomoko Yamaguchi) above and atop it. Sosuke shakes the jar forcefully to try and get the 'goldfish' out but the little 'goldfish' is stuck. He then tries to pull it out but it just cannot come loose. Sosuke then place the jar on the ground before smashing a small rock onto it, breaking it into pieces instantly while suffering a small cut on the finger. He then checks inquisitively to see if the 'goldfish' is still alive. As he observes it, the 'goldfish' reacts by licking the blood off his finger suddenly. Excited, Sosuke quickly rushes back to the house and put the 'goldfish' in a small bucket of water in hope that it will survive. It did and he named it 'Ponyo'(Yuria Nara).

The above scene would signify what is to come for the remainder of the film. It is of the interactions between Sosuke and Ponyo. And it is one that Hayao Miyazaki did meticulously well in portraying. He must have a keen sense of observation and understanding of how children behave before he depicts this chemistry of communication between the two main characters. The behavior of the children would also extend into the rest of the film in their further encounters.

The affection between Sosuke and Ponyo grew as the film progresses from the moment Sosuke brought Ponyo to school in Lisa's car. The best moment came when the two were reunited after a brief separation when Ponyo's father, Fujimoto (George Tokoro), a magical sea dweller recaptures the errant Ponyo before encapsulating her in a magic bubble with kind intention.

Fujimoto who was once human has grown to refer humans with disgust for polluting the sea and stealing its life. But all Ponyo wants is to be human and be with Sosuke so for a second time she escapes, accidentally emptying his father's precious store of magical elixir into the sea, creating a storm of tidal waves and engulfing the small town in the process.

What follows are the adventures of Sosuke and Ponyo in the flooded town.

Is there a happily ever after in this one? Would true love prevail? You find out.

Looking at the art in Ponyo on the Cliff by the Sea, there appears to be a deviation from Miyazaki's past works in terms of rendering. It looks unfamiliar because the environment apart from the characters at play in every scene is not colored in the usual fashion as in Spirited Away (2001) and Howl's Moving Castle (2004). The aesthetical appeal is discounted from what appears to be color penciled drawings. The objects and characters are also not as detailed as before.

This is peculiar if taken on face value but from the way the story is written and told, the possible explanation is that Miyazaki is allowing the audience to view the film with a child's tint, yet allowing the adults to reminisce on a Japan when they were younger. This move could have prevented prospective moviegoers, new to Miyazaki's work to see it. The trailer did nothing to promote Ponyo as well. Taking the case to Japan however would be a different story as Miyazaki's credential far than exceed any marketing technique.

In summary though, the whole did not equal to its parts. Aside from Miyazaki's ability to cast vivacious and animated characters, the film lacks elements of thrill and wonder when measured against previous works, resulting in a deficit of big screen presence.

The sparks of Ponyo and Sosuke failed to light up the film in a big way but moments of warmth, kindness, and love can still be found in recognizing the film as one that is not made for the kids, but of the kids who everyone is or once was.

11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ip Man (2008)

8/10

The Martial of Virtuosity - A Review of Ip Man

6 February 2009

Ip Man (1893-1972) is the expert in the Wushu fighting style of Wing Chun, and is the master of the famous Bruce Lee. As there has never been any previous film record of Ip Man, this film produced by Raymond Wong and directed by Wilson Yip will be the very first.

The movie opens and dates back to 1935 Foshan, with the city bustling with activities and various schools of martial arts are seen busy with the practice of their craft. In the people's mind however there would be only one martial artist who is the best. He however would have no interest in opening a school to teach his art. He is Ip Man, played by Hong Kong action star Donnie Yen.

Our introduction to Ip Man began on the day when Master Liu (Chen Zhi-Hui) visits Ip Man at his residence when the latter is having dinner with his wife and son. Being the typical martial arts enthusiast that Master Liu is, he declined to leave when advised by Ip Man to come back at another time, choosing instead to stay and wait until Ip Man have finished his dinner. He is eager to test his skills against Master Ip Man. The mood here is not of hostility but of a light hearted and humorous fashion. Ip Man even invited Master Liu to sit and have dinner with his family when he spots him restlessly waiting by the living room. We see here the humble and modest character of the protagonist.

When the sparring finally got underway, it ended as swiftly as Ip Man's strokes suggest. Because in three strokes and a set of quick fists, he had Master Liu at his peril, well defeated yet without injury, as this was all but a friendly exchange in the spirit of martial arts. The essence of Ip Man's fighting style, Wing Chun, is characterized by its tall narrow stance with effectiveness demonstrated through speed and power. It reminds of the time when Bruce Lee had to slow his punches down during filming, as they were just too fast for the cameras back then to capture.

In the world of martial arts, with all its attractiveness, it also brings with it the competitive nature of those who practice them. With competitiveness taken the wrong way, things can go awfully wrong when all one wants to achieve is to have the other beaten so as to prove who the superior fighter is. A thug in Kam Shan-chau (Fan Sui-Wong) later arrives and challenges the various schools, defeating their masters ruthlessly, until he came face to face with Ip Man. Kam lost to Ip Man with a lesson he ought to have learn, only that he did not and left Foshan with only disgrace in his mind. The people celebrate as they hail Ip Man the savior who brought glory to Foshan by sending the thug away.

The fight ends but the story have only just began, and with it a change of mood from lightness to heavy because war has broken. The Japanese have seized Foshan.

What follows will be Ip Man's struggles and challenges as he has to make ends meet for his family in the dreadful time of adversity. It is here we see the true character of Ip Man, who has captured the hearts of the people of Foshan and their respect. This is most notable among his friends in Chow Ching-chuen (Simon Yam), his son Chow Kong-yiu (Calvin Cheng), and Crazy Lam (Xing Yu).

To mistake this film, as one of just good versus evil is easy because in a movie that has a hero, there must be a villain. There are a few characters here befitting of the role. We have the Japanese general, Miura (Hiroyuki Ikeuchi). We have the aforementioned thug, Kam Shan-chau. We also have police officer turned interpreter, Li Chiu (Lam Ka-tung) who appears to be a traitor. The film here however should not to be seen as a fight against evil but rather of the depiction of humanistic values that Ip Man himself would possess.

There are many meaningful messages encrypted in the various plots and subplots in this wonderful film that really is about virtues more than anything else. As producer Raymond Wong would suggest on why the production team had chosen to make this film, it is that of really making a kung fu movie that is authentic and real, moving away from past attempts at glorifying and stylizing violence on screen. The intention is to make a film that would reflect the spirit of Chinese kung fu, and what better than to portray it through the virtuous character of Master Ip Man.

I would have like to compare this film to Fearless aka Huo Yuan Jia (2006), starring Jet Li, which strings from a similar root, but at the very core, the approach is different. While Fearless is written in a more dramatic nature, with a more compelling story and edited with a creative dimension, Ip Man is honest and direct because that is who our protagonist is.

What stood out for me in Ip Man is when he ponders in introspection about what use his training and expertise in Wing Chun all his years would come to. It would appear that there is destiny waiting to be fulfilled. And he would also influence those around him with what he has and even lead those who have been wrong to do right despite the pressure of circumstances, because to the very basis, it is the right thing to do in humanity.

History means nothing if its lessons are not learned.

The film also stars the stunning Xiong Dai Lin as Cheung Wing-sing, Ip Man's wife, and I must also not forget to mention that the acclaimed Sammo Hung directs the action.

48 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Disturbia (2007)

6/10

Movie Review: Disturbia

1 August 2007

For a movie titled "Disturbia", it is not really disturbing, or should I say it is disturbingly undisturbed. When the tagline reads, "Every killer lives next door to someone", I am thinking toward a film that is suspenseful and thrilling.

So is Disturbia the movie starring Shia Labeouf a movie of such? It is disturbingly not, at least for the most part.

Kale (Shia Labeouf) is a typical teenager in a growing up phase. He is carefree, fun loving and shows a keen interest in the opposite sex, but all that is about to change. That change came when he loses his father in a car accident one vacation.

All that enthusiastic energy is depleted and things got worse when he lands himself 3 months of house arrest for punching his Spanish teacher.

What can a teenager do when he cannot even leave his house? He spends all his time playing video games and watching loads of entertainment on television of course. Great you'll think but only until his mum (Carrie-Anne Moss) decides that enough is enough because Kale is neglecting everything else. She cancels his Xbox, iTune and best of all cut off the wire to the television when Kale snaps at her sensitivity.

The boy will have to look for other things for entertainment and so he invents his own reality channel; he spies on his neighbours. One of whom is a hot and sexy girl, Ashley (Sarah Roemer), who has just moved in next door while the other is boring Robert Turner (David Morse) who mows his lawn twice a day. The focus of the movie will revolve around Kale's interest in the two, one with sexual curiosity and the other with suspicious animosity.

Kale suspects Mr. Turner to be a serial killer when a report hits the news that the suspect drives a blue Ford Mustang similar to that of his neighbour. With the help of best friend Ronnie (Aaron Yoo) and along with love interest Ashley, the trio will attempt to uncover the mystery behind Robert Turner.

The pace of the film is rather slow to begin with. I find myself questioning what kind of a movie am I really watching. Is this a comedy or a thriller? Director D. J. Caruso probably wanted it to be both. It felt like a swing most of the time, teasing with the possibility of suspense and thrill then suddenly shifting the momentum to comedic exposition. Disturbing, very disturbing.

The thing behind the suspicious Mr. Turner lacked depth. Many questions were left unanswered. It appears that the storywriters, Carl Ellsworth and Christopher B. Landon are more interested in making the romance work between Kale and Ashley rather than having the "who really is Mr. Turner?" work out. At least there was a climatic scene at the end to save it even if I thought it as being too convenient a plot to drop the curtains with. The murderer just messed up.

So "Every killer lives next door to someone"?

Try "Every hot girl lives next door to someone". That sounds more like it.

0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Captivity (2007)

6/10

Movie Review: Captivity

30 July 2007

It baffles me. Captivity, the movie starring Elisha Cuthbert, directed by two times Oscar nominee, Roland Joffé and written by Larry Cohen of Cellular (2004) and Phone Booth (2002) really baffles me.

First up, the marketing really killed it. I learned a new term for the sub-genre of horror films known as "torture porn". Torture porn refers to movies that feature nudity, torture, mutilation and sadism. Although Hostel (2005) was the first film to be given this label, the classification is also relevant to the Saw franchise and movie like the more recent Turista (2006). You'll be surprised that even The Passion of Christ (2004) falls under this category. The selling point of such films is the gore factor. Most of the time the story is lame and poor thus the term porn. Porn is sex without a story.

That is where the marketing for Captivity went awfully wrong. The controversy that surrounds it in the United States before its release on July Friday the 13th is over hyped. No doubt its bad publicity that drew complaints for its "horrific" billboard posters was considered a success, but to market Captivity as a "torture porn" movie is still a big mistake.

I found out that Captivity was actually completed two years ago. Director Roland Joffé had envisioned it as a psychological thriller type movie that is about the public's obsession on celebrities. It was even said that Paris Hilton was part of the inspiration. It will only make sense if viewed upon from this angle. An Oscar quality director and a rated film writer stooping low to make a "torture porn" movie would be a great story for a horror movie by itself.

There wasn't meant to be plenty of gore in Captivity. It was meant to be a story about the abduction of a celebrity model, Jennifer Tree (Elisha Cuthbert), how she had to suffer the mental tortures of her captor and how she ended up in the end.

It asks the questions about who her captor was, what are his intentions and why another man, Gary (Daniel Gillies), was also held confined.

Since 2004 with the introduction of Saw, a movie produced at just $1.2m that grossed over $100m worldwide, there suddenly grew a huge interest for such films. It was highly profitable and the public loved it.

So Roland Joffé's Captivity was re-edited. In comes the gore, Jennifer Tree was made to drink a horrible concoction of body parts, made to choose the fate of her beloved pet dog and strapped to a dentist chair for further physical torture. Almost a third of the film was re-shot and edited by the production company's CEO, Courtney Solomon. It was also rumoured that another writer, Joseph Tura roped in for the re-write.

So there you go, a film that does not know what it wanted to be. A psychological thriller remade as a "torture porn" wannabe.

It may appear that I am defending this film. I certainly am not. I just felt it should be given a much fairer justification. I do not even think Elisha Cuthbert did a good job in the role but she sure is a looker. The poster of her behind a fence with a mascara-smeared teardrop rolling down the cheek is a very good piece of graphic design imagery. That attracted much of my attention to this movie.

I can say the same for the cinematography in Captivity but when it comes to the full product, it is nowhere near greatness. Not that it was intended to be but a movie that is lost in its true essence is a nuisance. This is one film I thought was poor on first sight but afterthoughts and background research made it clearer that it was a film that did not lived up to its potential.

The idea was a good one but in the wrong hands You know the rest. The wrong expectation played up by marketing can ruin a moviegoer's experience.

It really is just Cs for Captivity; Controversy, Cuthbert and Courtney Solomon.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Vacancy (2007)

6/10

Movie Review: Vacancy

25 July 2007

I think it bogs down to your level of threshold for "thrill", "scare" and "experience" for this one. Vacancy, the film starring Kate Beckinsale and Luke Wilson is very much textbook stuff when we talk about the genre of horror and thriller.

Although nothing really new, the idea remains interesting. David (Luke Wilson) and Amy (Kate Beckinsale) are driving home one night when the car breaks down in the middle of nowhere.

Almost conveniently there is a gas station and motel nearby where help can be found. It'll be futile to think the two of them are going elsewhere. That is not going to happen. They will stay at the motel and they will be trapped. If not then where is the story?

So then the two quarrelsome duos will discover in their creepy "Honeymoon Suite" that a collection of videos featuring gruesome images of violent murder are filmed exactly where they are. Imagine yourself in their shoes. I bet you'll be freaked out too.

The thrill in Vacancy is how David and Amy tries their best to outsmart their captors who are watching from every possible hidden camera if to escape the fate of those seen in the videos.

The scare in Vacancy is how director Nimród Antal uses the textbook stuff of leaving spaces in between scenes for your imagination to enter.

Literally that is what the word "Vacancy" means, a vacant spot for you to fill in. It is also no wonder that the three psychos, led by motel manager Mason (Frank Whaley) are obsessed about their game. This out of place motel in the middle of nowhere is awfully lonely.

The scene where the mechanic played by Ethan Embry saying to the couple, "I should pay you for giving me something to do," tells it best. The idle mind really is the devil's workshop.

Vacancy the movie however cannot be described as believable. Again here is one those films that can be enjoyable only if we take logic away from it. As I've mentioned earlier, how much this movie works is largely dependant on your threshold for "thrill", "scare" and "experience". To me Vacancy is not very scary or thrilling. Due to it being unbelievable, and based on my experience with the thriller and horror genre, the plot is pretty much laid out for me. I knew what was going to happen, but it did not stop me from having fun watching the film.

Ever wondered why some people could laugh at the sight of horror on screen? I found the answer in Vacancy. It being unreal and sometimes silly is laughable. I wanted to question its authenticity but gave up because it is not documentary or comparable to the Saw or Hostel franchise. There's nothing gruesome in Vacancy, just a simple game of cat and mouse played within an isolated vicinity of a creepy motel. It is at the very least an entertaining getaway into the darkroom with a big screen.

Those with a higher threshold might beg to differ but I sure had fun watching Luke Wilson and Kate Beckinsale playing the victims.

Vacancy is not the best of its kind but definitely not the worst. Have you got time to kill? Why not fill your vacancy with Vacancy?

0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)

8/10

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

16 July 2007

Chris Columbus did the first and the second, Alfonso Cuaron did the third, the forth was done by Mike Newell and the fifth, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is by David Yates. Who are these people whose names I've mentioned? They are the directors of course.

Oh you didn't think they matter do you? I cannot deny the fact that what matter the most is Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe). He is after all the main character of the series. You might even care for his two best friends, Ron Weasley (Rupert Grint) and Hermione Granger (Emma Watson), and even Dumbledore (Michael Gambon), but seriously if there is no director then there is no character. It would be like reading a Harry Potter book only not written by author J.K. Rowling.

Are you getting me yet?

If you do please read on If not please take another moment to think about what I've said.

The adventure or plot of the Harry Potter series is only going to get darker. If you are to be still stuck in the realms of innocence and magic of what Chris Columbus has created on screen with the first two Harry Potter films, namely "the Sorcerer's Stone" and "Chamber of Secrets" then you're hereby warned.

If you are to be in the mood to argue that Alfonso Cuaron's "Prisoner of Azkaban" or Mike Newell's "Goblet of Fire" is the best you've seen, then you are warned as well.

With a different director at the helm at "Order of the Phoenix" and the continuation of a darkening story, you should be able to feel the differencing treatment as early as when the movie opens. It feels like a horror movie rather than a children fantasy adventure.

Harry is seen sitting on a swing in the middle of a playground. His cousin Dudley and gang came and started antagonizing him. In anger, Harry whipped out his wand and pointed it straight up Dudley's throat. All of a sudden dark clouds formed and everybody started running. Harry and Dudley found shelter beneath a tunnel but two ghostly Dementors located them and started sucking the souls out of the poor boys.

Harry managed to fight off the Dementors with a Patronus spell but was later informed of his expulsion from Hogwart. He had violated the rules by using magic in the presence of a muggle (or beings without magical powers).

But he was later rescued by Dumbledore's Order of the Phoenix, a secret society formed in the times of Harry's father as a resistance against the evil Voldemort.

The story will move away from an atmosphere of magic and wonder from the previous films and into a more grown-up stressful fashion. Before even fighting the evil of an advancing Voldemort, Harry and friends will have their hands full with a new teacher who would slowly gain control of Hogwart. She is Delores Umbridge, played in truly self-absorbing fashion by actress Imelda Staunton. Here is one character that gives all who loves pink an evil sense of deportment. All of what will happen is due to Minister of Magic, Cornelius Fudge's refusal to acknowledge the fact that Voldemort is back.

The ignorance of those in positions of leadership can be so frustrating to those who truly knew better.

It will fall to Harry and his friends to take matters to their own hands. As the tagline suggest: "The Rebellion Begins". On the suggestion by Ron and Hermione, Harry will gather like-minded schoolmates and friends to form "Dumbledore's Army".

Like in all Harry Potter's film, the evil Voldemort will surface right toward the end with a climatic battle between good and evil ensuing.

Good and evil will be very trying for Harry. This is the darker theme that will follow our poor wizard hero. The film will be very much focus on Harry's internal battle. Just what is Voldemort's relation with Harry, and why is Voldemort unable to kill Harry is what the Order of the Phoenix will set you in ponder.

The prophecy says, "Neither can live while the other survives".

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is very well produced. There is a beauty in the cinematography seen from the capture of every scene. They were well thought and well edited. The details on the set of the Ministry of Magic, with its glossy black look is chilling yet cool.

Look out for new character, Luna Lovegood, played by the wonderful Evanna Lynch. She is the character that Harry will be relating to the most. They share the common perception of the word, death.

Although the movie is at 2 hours and 18 minutes long, it is the shortest among all five in the Harry Potter series so far. A lack of action and cinematic wonder made it felt long though. "Order of the Phoenix" is more inclined to the thinkers than those who are watching for the visual adjuration of the active kind. Maybe it is due to the lack of Quidditch in this one.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix will leave you with anticipation to the next one, which is Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.

All shall be revealed, soon, only two more to go.

0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

9/10

Movie Review: Die Hard 4.0 a.k.a Live Free or Die Hard

13 July 2007

Die Hard (1988), Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990), Die Hard 3: Die Hard With a Vengeance (1995) and now after twelve years, Bruce Willis is back as NYPD detective, John McClane in Die Hard 4.0 a.k.a Live Free or Die Hard.

The first Die Hard was considered the best action movie of its era and was also responsible for creating the "action star" archetype. No prizes for guessing who shot to fame.

The question however should be whether a 52 year old Bruce Willis can reprise his role as detective John McClane. There's also the query upon the movie title with its numeric four decimal zero.

As the film opened, I immediately knew why. The movie title flickered and Mai Linh (Maggie Q) was seen chatting up a hacker, Matthew Farrell (Justin Long) with an exchange of payment and information. Moments later another hacker's home was blown up as he presses the Delete button on his keyboard. Something is definitely up and it has got to do with hackers but I still do not know what is really going on. Suspense is created by curiosity.

But where is detective McClane? He's introduced in the movie spying on his daughter, Lucy (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) at a college car park making out with a boy. In this scene we are reminded of the relationship strain between our courageous hero and his daughter. The screenplay here will set the tone of McClane's communication style. There is a sense of authority, wit and involuntary charm about McClane's character that is compelling.

The other character you'll be made much aware of is Matthew Farrell, the hacker who McClane is specifically assigned by the higher ups to escort to the Federal Bureau soon after the argument with Lucy. That would signal the start of 2 hours of non-stop action. The first explosive sequence will see McClane and Farrell fighting and escaping five gun-welding assassins decorating Farrell's apartment with bullet holes. Just at a time when I thought stunts and bullet dodging was a lost art in Hollywood, the production crew here sure showed me. The breath-taking actions never stop until the bad guy is.

The bad guy is Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), the mastermind behind a very elaborate virtual terrorists attack to shut down and take over the United States. The story gets interesting when we know whom the bad guy is but we do not know what he is up to. That is where the suspense, thrills and actions become Die Hard 4.0. The atmosphere is intense to a fault. I was hoping for a break in all the drama to give me some space to breathe and thankfully it came around the hour mark.

Here is the light hearted moment where McClane and Farrell gets to know each other a little bit better when they converse about their lives to each other.

Right after the break came the kick-ass fight scene between McClane and Mai Linh or the sexy and seductive Maggie Q. When I mean kick-ass I do mean kick-ass. Whoa!!!

We all knew McClane die hard so it became no surprise that Gabriel wanted to take things more personally with the kidnapping of Lucy which sets up a fight to the end.

"I'm gonna go kill this guy and get my daughter. Or go get my daughter and kill this guy. Or kill all of 'em!"

Die Hard 4.0 is the movie to describe the word "adrenaline".

I must commend director Len Wiseman and his crew for giving me the rush. (To get a taste of the rush I felt, go to the official website and soak in to the soundtrack) There is another name on the crew list that I must mention. He is Patrick Tatopoulos, the production designer. His artistry as seen in movies like I, Robot, Underworld: Evolution, Silent Hill and Pitch Black gave Die Hard 4.0 a rich visual style. All that and in combining with the vision of Len Wiseman and cinematographer Simon Duggan is a captivating Die Hard film. I especially like the way the camera catches the details of surveillance objects throughout and the use of cool and warm lens filter to set the mood.

The cast is excellent, Bruce Willis is great, Justin Long is convincing in his role as the geeky yet irritably funny hacker, and so is Cliff Curtis who I almost fail to mention, in his role as the F.B.I top man. My only complaint is not having seen enough of Maggie Q. I feel she is really maturing into the niche of the female action star genre having last seen her in Mission: Impossible III.

The story by Mark Bomback and David Marconi really tells of the possible terrorist threat in a computerized environment and possibly inspired by the subject of security breach after the events of nine eleven. Having such a heavy dependency on high technology, computers and the Internet in this modern era of ours, it would be terrifying to know they can easily become the means for a terrorist attack. When the title reads 4.0, it says something about computer programming or a serial version of a software. It serves to remind us of the hardware that we have so taken for granted in everyday living, namely the people around us who we often forget to care. On the other hand, Live Free or Die Hard would be saying that we must remain vigilant to prevent our freedom from being compromised.

"All you gotta do is go pick up a kid in New Jersey, and drive him down to D.C. How hard can that be, huh?" John McClane was lamenting about his job shortly before launching a police car into a pursuing helicopter.

All you gotta do now is go see how he did it. How hard can that be? Show your appreciation, It'll be well worth it.

2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Transformers (2007)

7/10

This is NOT a real Transformers movie

8 July 2007

As the title of the film suggest: "a Michael Bay film, Transformers"

Transformers (2007) is Michael Bay's version of the Transformers of which he described as a "stupid toy movie" before he was educated about the subject matter by Hasbro. The movie therefore reflected Bay's vision of the Transformers which in ways are different from the original.

Apart from that is also the fact that the movie is just a commercial film for the mass market filled with Product Placements.

Even with all the effort and brilliance in creating the live action movie using CGI & special effects (which is entertaining to the mass market), the movie really fell short on capturing what should be the essence of the original Transformer characters.

As a film it did not do strongly on story telling, creating a compelling atmosphere & developing characters. What it did however was to put on a show of explosion, crashes & cheap humor.

Sure the film entertained in terms of giving its audience a cinematic experience with visual & sound (mostly bass) effects but is a good film based just on that alone?

Whatever happened to script writing, screenplay, cinematography, directing, editing & complimenting musical score?

Is this the way movies should be made even if the audience should cheer & applaud them?

As a media of great influence, shouldn't movie makers at least consider what values & messages they are sending out by their creation?

When Optimus Prime & his Autobots made up their mind to save earth and the human race, just what kind of a world are they really saving?

A world of destruction, a world that sees commercial values above all else and a world whose people view a film like Michael Bay's Transformer something of high regard?

Just who are these robots in disguised as the Transformers?

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)

6/10

Movie Review: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer

14 June 2007

When the trailer is better than the movie, what does it says about the movie? That is how Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer turns out to be. I'm going to be wicked. The filmmakers should rename the sequel to 2005's Fantastic Four to Plastic Flaw: Fall of the Silver Surfer.

The hardest review to write is having nothing good to write about. So if you, the reader expect any good here then you may be disappointed. There could be a couple of things good but mostly there are more, I shouldn't say bad, but just not good.

I really liked how the Silver Surfer looks in the movie but it is just that for a film based on the comic-book genre, it is awfully thin. (Comic books may be thin in physical appearance but they are usually big on ideas and graphics) When I say thin, I'm thinking three things, the script, the CGI (except the Silver Surfer) and Jessica Alba.

I liked 2005's Fantastic Four despite it being critically bombarded by many reviewers. It is at least entertaining and I could relate to the feelings of each Fantastic Four characters. This sequel however gave nothing valuable for the price of an entry ticket.

What happened? I needed some answers. Let us check what shuffling was done in the production shall we?

A check on the crew list reflected a change in the personnel that did the screenplay. Mark Frost and Michael France who did the screenplay in the first film were no longer there. Actually it was only Michael France who was missing. The two of them gave Fantastic Four some very interesting and fun dialogues that a comic-book genre movie needs. That part is not apparent in Rise of the Silver Surfer. The screenplay turned out to be bland, uninspiring and mostly uninteresting. It was hardly moving and nobody's even laughing at the funnier scenes.

Mark Frost and Don Payne did the screenplay instead. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is loosely adapted from the stories in the original comic book. And according to Don Payne, the story in the film is based on Fantastic Four #48, where Galactus makes an appearance and #57-60 where Doctor Doom steals the Silver Surfer's powers.

Mark Frost was also the one who wrote the story and it was OK. Why does the film need a storywriter? Isn't it based on the Marvel comic book? Lest you forget, a film still needs to be written so it can be played out on the big screen.

If you're not a comic book fan or if you had not read Fantastic Four then you should be as clueless as I am. As good as the Silver Surfer looks with that chrome body of his that is all so cool, the movie did not tell us who he really is except that he was once named Norrin Radd and he works for something or someone known as Galactus, who or what looks like a cosmic storm cloud and is said to be a devourer of planets.

I cannot imagine what the fans will think of this film. I can only guess they will be disappointed.

If you had read this far then I think you are interested to find out more so here goes and I'll lead you into the film.

The movie begins with the Silver Surfer flying away from an exploding planet and into earth. Bursting through the air space in various parts of earth, he caused a climatic shift that sees snow fall in Egypt. Large craters then appears and it was found that every planet that the Silver Surfer goes, it dies in eight days.

Meanwhile the Fantastic Four has gotten used to their extraordinary lives with the Human Torch (Chris Evans) seemingly enjoying much of the limelight. The Thing (Michael Chiklis) having found love with the blind Alicia Masters (Kerry Washington) after his wife left him because of his hideous looks is looking OK. Mr. Fantastic (Ioan Gruffuld) and Invisible Woman (Jessica Alba) are getting married. Everything is looking all right until the Silver Surfer arrives and mess up their lives again.

Quarreling and fighting, the team of four with their diverse persona will come clashing with one another. Underneath their appearance is another layer of skin that cannot be seen with the eyes. That part needs to be understood by those who care. Who are they?

With the earth's existence threatened, the team of four needs to work out their differences to save the world. Things are not helped by the return of power hungry Victor or Doctor Doom (Julian McMahon), the villain from the first film who has escaped his captivity in Latveria. Evil as he is, he has a different agenda although first appearing to be helpful.

How can the Fantastic Four save earth from a force so powerful that devours cosmic planets? Look to the title of this film for the answer.

The plot is interesting isn't it? I thought so too. But if you refer to the top, I changed the name of the movie. Plastic Flaw because even as a film that relies on CGI and special effects as its selling points, it is flawed in appearance. Everything except for the Silver Surfer looks only superficial and adds nothing new to what we had already seen before. And Fall of the Silver Surfer because the Silver Surfer fell off his board quite literally just as the movie did.

Watch if you're a fan because surely you will. And watch if you've got 90 minutes to kill. But if it is an entertaining, inspiring and fantastic movie you're looking for then you'll need to look elsewhere.

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is not fantastic, just ordinary.

5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Ocean's Thirteen (2007)

7/10

Movie Review: Ocean's Thirteen

7 June 2007

Warning: Spoilers

So they're back, for a third time, after Ocean's Eleven in 2001 and Ocean's Twelve in 2004. First they took out three of Terry Benedict's (Andy Garcia) Las Vegas casinos at one go with a smart and clever plan in Eleven, then they had to pay it all back with interest to Benedict in Twelve by staging a different theft, now in Thirteen the team of eleven are back to casino stealing with a little help from again, Benedict.

The unlucky guy is Willy Banks (Al Pacino) who owns a series of highly rated "5 Diamonds" hotels. The team is not in for the money this round but for revenge because Banks had done the disfavour of first knocking Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould), one of the Eleven, from a hotel deal causing the man a heart-attack and a sudden lost in zest for life. You could say old Willy Banks had it coming for him because his ego was too big for himself. He had without any regards dismissed the Eleven's attempt for him to reinstate Reuben's share of the hotel.

As it reads, "What are the odds of getting even? 13 to 1." It's time to place your bet.

Good guys versus bad guys. I cannot really call thieves good guys can I? How about nice guys then? These guys are nice. They have a sentimental heart. They watch Oprah. These guys are nice. They have a heart of gold. They will do anything for a friend. And these guys are cool, handsome and funny too.

Danny Ocean (George Clooney), Rusty Ryan (Brad Pitt), Linus Caldwell (Matt Damon), Frank Catton (Bernie Mac), Virgil Malloy (Casey Affleck), Turk Malloy (Scott Caan), Saul Bloom (Carl Reiner), Basher Tarr (Don Cheadle), "The Amazing" Yen (Shaobo Qin), Livingston Dell (Eddie Jemison) and Reuben Tishkoff (Elliott Gould) make up the Eleven. Strong cast and strong performance is to describe the ensemble.

Let me re-familiarize you to the team. Danny and Rusty are the mastermind and deputy. Linus is the rookie turned master thief. Frank is the professional dealer. Virgil and Turk are brothers who are experts in everything (they kind of do everything and run everywhere). Saul is the old and characteristic actor con-artiste. Basher is the demolition and machinery expert. "The Amazing" Yen is the well the amazing Yen who is skilled in acrobatic. Livingston is the guru in surveillance and an electronic geek. And of course lastly we have Reuben who is the old man with the money and Danny's mentor.

No worries if you can't remember their roles. You can't be blamed for that. There are after all eleven of them. Just remember them as master of disguises. Lots of that will appear in the film.

What make a film like Ocean's Thirteen worth watching is watching all the characters. It is fun to see all of them coming together in their own way to give the story its life. The acting is in one word, superb. And the actor who plays the bad guy, Willy Banks, Al Pacino is great. The facial expression whenever the veteran actor appears on screen is beyond words. Those eyes and that look, brilliant. Banks right hand man, or woman, and the only mentionable actress in Ocean's Thirteen is Abigail Sponder (Ellen Barkin), and she's foxy.

The story is not that complicated and I can't spoil it by telling. It is basically the eleven taking revenge on Banks with a little help from Benedict. There'll be the usual witty dialogues, the underlying funny relationship among the team members and of course the all-important ploy of how to breach into ego Willy's hotel casino on its opening night. For a film of such fashion, the most interesting part will always be how smart the plan to steal is being done. In Ocean's Thirteen it is not bad and quite exaggerated. For the audience I advise taking the consideration of logic out of the equation and just enjoy all the action on screen as they are. There is no need to be too hard or too smart about it. The main point to this film is to enjoy the humour.

The chill-out, atmospheric and ambient music by composer David Holmes is one of the factors that give this movie series its slick aesthetics. Ocean's Thirteen bettered its last effort of Twelve though not quite as clever, smart and interesting as Eleven. A first tough act was always hard to follow but director Steven Soderbergh gave this one a decent account.

It is easier to enjoy the movie than to dislike it. I like the small part about the hotel reviewer and the jackpot and felt it was a nice touch. If I were to put the film more critically though, I would say that it is not as smooth and the flavour not as strong. Sounds like I'm describing an ice-cream? It is like ice-cream with all the actors and actress in this one. Now who doesn't like ice-cream right?

Any flavour will do as long as it's sweet, cool and topped with some crunch.

137 out of 218 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shrek the Third (2007)

7/10

Movie Review: Shrek the Third

4 June 2007

Gone is the evil fairy godmother, vanished after being blasted by the magic from her own wand in Shrek 2 and so her son, Prince Charming (Rupert Everett) took over as the core villain. Prince Charming is reduced to a mediocre stage actor who gets booed at every opportunity by his audience. Feeling the victim of the doings by Shrek (Mike Myers), Prince Charming vows to take back what he thought should be rightly his.

Meanwhile in the kingdom of FAR FAR AWAY, The King (John Cleese) is dying and he needs an heir to the throne. Who is to be the heir? It's Shrek of course. But he doesn't want to be king and seeks out to find Princess Fiona's (Cameron Diaz) cousin, Artie (Justin Timberlake) to take his place.

Shrek the Third is about who gets to be King of FAR FAR AWAY. Is it Shrek, Artie or Prince Charming? While that is the main plot of the computer-animated film, the story really is about personal identity, parenthood and the relationship between father and son.

There is nothing in the form of spectacular in the film. We're all very accustomed to what computer-animated graphics can do. I can't tell the difference to whether the green ogre has one or two pixels more from the first two films. That is besides the point to a family oriented, fun filled movie with jokes and pop music to groove with. It can be 2D for all I care.

What is to be appreciated is quite literally not to look at things at face value. That is to put in other words not to judge a book (or ogre) by its cover. It's cliché but still it's not taken seriously often enough. Granted it is taken for too many a times. That is why in the first place DreamWorks came out with an ogre in the form of Shrek. He still looks green as usual.

One might argue that Shrek the Third is no greener than its first two films. I won't dispute that fact. We still see the same lovable characters such as Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and Puss in Boots (Antonio Banderas) and the film obviously have stuck itself to a formula that works. Shrek 4 (2010) is on its way to put a "happily ever after" to this non-conventional fairy tale.

You don't need to see Shrek or Shrek 2 to enjoy Shrek 3. It's as simple to watch as reading a children's storybook. It brings back memories. It relates to teenagers. It gives the children the joy of laughter. It brings family closer. It's a happy film.

Those who should leave the cinema with a grimace on their face probably have issues unresolved. It's like looking into the magic mirror and asking who is the fairest of them all. It's not all about seen it and done that. It's about who hasn't. Children are one of those who haven't, while parents have. That is the message if you can relate and apply.

The magic and wonders of a computer-animated film by DreamWorks is on show. What it needs now is to end well with a good Shrek 4 and than tell us all about a new story.

"Thank You (Falletin Me Be Mice Elf Again)", the soundtrack from the ending credits summarizes Shrek the Third fittingly in err Can you make out what those words in brackets mean?

1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)

7/10

Movie Review: Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End

28 May 2007

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is the third and last of the money spinning trilogy, or so they say. Everything has led to this, or so they say again and I kept my mind opened. The first of the Pirates series, The Curse of the Black Pearl was good. It was a movie out of nothing or more correctly a movie inspired by nothing more than a Disney theme park ride. Having said that however the creation of Captain Jack Sparrow was nothing short of inspirational. Captain Jack played by the charismatic Johnny Depp became the talisman of Pirates of the Caribbean. Thought to be dead when we saw him charging into the jaws of monster octopus Kraken toward the end of Dead Man's Chest (the sequel), he is to be brought back from the dead in this latest film.

I have to be honest; I hated Dead Man's Chest. Its various plots and subplots were terribly tangled and confusing. It was hard to follow what sort of story or motives the movie wants to say. I blamed my lack of understanding for not comprehending Dead Man's Chest. That was summer of last year but since then I have done my research, for the billion dollars making movie was to have a third installment. Having seen one and two, I have to see three. But if I do not understand two then how can I go ahead with three. And so after a better understanding of two I saw three. You should know this. For all my efforts I was still robbed by the pirates.

I was led happily out into the open sea before being robbed. I was enjoying the first third of the 168 minutes film. Captain Jack's crew arrived in Singapore to look for Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fatt), pirate lord of the South China Sea for a ship and a map, so they could sail to world's end and rescue our favourite captain from Davy Jones's Locker. Davy Jones's Locker is a ghost realm of the netherworld where the dead Captain Jack Sparrow is being kept for eternity.

There appears to be some oriental influence in At World's End. Firstly of course we are introduced to a Chinese pirate, Captain Sao Feng. Secondly, the costumes and all were very well designed in an exquisite oriental fashion. And there was Singapore, a South East Asian country where Captain Sao Feng can be found.

The Singapore set features a bathhouse and I couldn't help relating it to Japanese animation master Hayao Miyazaki's Spirited Away. The popular animated film, released by Disney in the west has a bathhouse theme. The relation did not stop there, and I wondered if the scene where Captain Jack Sparrow is isolated in Davy Jones's Locker was inspired too by Hayao Miyazaki's work. The part where thousands of strange and curious yet harmless rounded stone-like crab helping Jack move his ship, The Black Pearl across a desert aroused my attention to this perspective. It was through the hands, eyes and imagination of the acclaimed animation master, Hayao Miyazaki that made famous the approach of detailing stories with thousands of mini little intriguing creatures. And it was fun to watch.

I was enjoying At World's End, laughing merrily at all the pirate jokes that the characters are lashing out at one another, feeling the thrill of the sword-fights and of course attracted to the sometimes witty, looney and mad character of Captain Jack Sparrow. That scene of him engaging himself to his many different personalities while alone in the deserted Davy Jones's Locker is a real gem.

But with all the oriental influences, the filmmakers probably did not take note of the teachings of Zen, where less is truly more. For when after the crew rescued Captain Jack Sparrow and brought him back to the mortal world, it all happened again. The tangling and confusing plots and subplots manifested once more and killed whatever is good about the film. In my opinion, if At World's End had ended after rescuing Captain Jack and had a straight approach in the gathering of forces to deal with Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander) and Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) with a fitting spectacle of a finale fight, the film would have been great.

I was trying to understand the story. In reflection I probably should not for it amounted to nothing. It just isn't worth it. It would be tiring for me just to list them all out. So just be warned that in the film, every character have their own personal agenda. It is "me" first and "you" later if "you" are still there. If that is the purpose of the story-writers to represent the meaning of how pirates are, then they have succeeded. In fact it was so successful that they lost me.

It bored me so much I no longer laughed at the jokes. It dragged on so long I no longer felt compelled to see the ending. I just want the film to end there and then. Enough was enough.

"Take whatever you can and give nothing back." Thanks a billion, filmmakers, or is it thanks me instead?

This entire Pirate series is like a ride on a pirate ship in a theme park, it was thrilling for a start but as it swing back and forth too many times the nauseas will come and when it stops you find yourself displaced nowhere.

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is a fine example of a good film gone bad because it had too many tangling tales to tell. I maintain that it is worth watching for the first third of the film but save yourself from seasickness in the middle just so you can enjoy the spectacular fight sequence toward the end.

175 out of 324 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

28 Weeks Later (2007)

9/10

Movie Review: 28 Weeks Later

13 May 2007

Warning: Spoilers

Bloody good. 28 Weeks Later that is. The film is so much more than what can be interpreted from the trailer. This sequel to the 2003 surprise hit British film proves to be an even bigger surprise, right from the first minute.

In a candle-lit kitchen, a woman prepares tomato sauce pasta. Her husband takes a bottle of red from the shelves. Their faces revealed worry and distraught. The camera now moves to the dining table. An old couple sits there. There's another man. And there was also a younger woman. She's handed a plate of pasta. She places it on the table space beside her. The man becomes agitated. He advises her that her boyfriend has been missing for days and will not be back. She disagrees. He gets more agitated. He tells her off saying that if her boyfriend ever returns, it would be her blood he's interested in and not the pasta. She starts to cry. The soft silence suddenly breaks. There's knocking at the door. A boy is shouting for help. He wants to come into the house. Everyone starts panicking. To open the door or not?

The man decided to open the door. A boy rushed in. The woman hugs him. Where's he from? From a town nearby he says and he's being chased. How many?

The anxious younger woman looks out of the house through a gap. Bham! Something grabs her. Zombies break in. Everyone starts running. It's a game of tag. One by one they're tagged. The horror. The last of them is the woman, Alice (Catherine McCormack), and the man, Don (Robert Carlyle). They're cornered in a room at the top floor of the house. He can't save her, he's terrified, and through a window he breaks out of the house and runs. Music plays, the familiar tune from 28 Days Later, the tune of hopelessness and despair. He looks back and she's watching from behind a window. He looks around; he's being chased by dozens of bloodthirsty zombies. He keeps running toward a river. He found a motorboat. He escapes.

What a start to this movie I thought. A thrilling entrance accomplished by a change of pace.

This is the sequel to 28 Days Later. The last of the zombies have died from starvation in 28 Weeks Later. Aerial shots of London showed a deserted city. The country is now being reconstructed and an enclosed area under the protection of the military, known as District-1 is ready for re-inhabitation. In comes the new residents and among them is a pair of siblings, Tammy (Imogen Poots) and Andy (Mackintosh Muggleton). They are the children of Don, the man who escaped earlier in the film. He's now one of the in-charge of District-1 with a triple A, Access-All-Area pass. Snipers guard District-1 from rooftops, they complain of nothing to shoot at and spend their nights surveying the privacy of the residents through their riflescope. One of them is Doyle (Jeremy Renner).

Don recaps the story of his escape to Tammy and Andy. He tells them they are not ever going back to their house. He tells them their mum died there, the day of his escape.

District-1 is the first of a program to re-populate the country and it is under the supervision of the military, headed by General Stone (Idris Elba). Aiding the program is Doctor Scarlet (Rose Byrne), who makes sure of the quarantine at District-1.

All is well until one day when the children, Tammy and Andy, who misses their mother, sneaked out of District-1 to return to their house for a photo of mum. There they discovered an infected but not zombified mum, Alice. As the military caught up with them, they too brought Alice back to District-1 where she's quarantined.

Alice could be a valuable asset, she seems to be immune to the Rage virus. As Stone and Scarlet discusses the fate of Alice, Don by himself went to see her. They kissed. He's infected. Can you guess the rest?

28 Weeks Later is better than 28 Days Later in many aspects. It's also a sci-fi, horror, thriller that is outstandingly produced. What is apparent in the film is its military element. It is a dimension that gave the story its shine.

Much credit has to be given out. Producers, director, cinematographer, editors The entire crew and creative team have done an excellent job with this film. This is not a brainless free-for-all flick that makes entertainment out of blood spilling angry zombies attacking bewildered screaming humans. There are lots of details painstakingly thought up and molded together for this film. The audience are well lead by the camera, which catches plenty of details and mood. From the plot, sub-plots, scenes, dialogues and cinematography, everything is top notch. It is a pleasure to watch even though I really should not encourage violent and killings. But a movie of violent and killing it really is not, at least not excessively, scenes of such is used only when emphasis is stressed.

It is more so the underlying meaning of the story and the thoughtfulness of movie-making that are compelling. Seldom is there a genre of this kind made this way.

The film is enjoyable but not to be taken for granted as just entertainment. There are no big stars here but it is for the better so as not to take the shine of its presence. You'll get the scares here and there and will definitely feel the pace when the characters start running. What is most notably well done is how director, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo uses silence and pauses along with darkness and camera shakes to depict some scenes.

28 Weeks Later really is bloody good and I meant that in an expressive way, just as the film is.

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Spider-Man 3 (2007)

7/10

Movie Review: Spider-Man 3

1 May 2007

Would it be fair to say that 3 is not better than 2? That is if I make a comparison between Spider-Man 3 and Spider-Man 2. But regardless of comparison, Spider-Man 3 is not a bad movie. It just isn't great, that's all.

The movie began with a lengthy title intro, throwing in snippets from the movie Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2, which left me with a bad feeling to how things will turn out. The intro wasn't well done. It was quite shabby, even lazy if to put it more harshly. Aesthetically speaking it wasn't impressive.

It was like as if portraying the way Peter Parker a.k.a Spider-Man is living his life after being celebrated as the city's hero. Life is good, so good that our hero has forgotten his place and purpose. Spider-Man, in this latest from the franchise is missing its spunk. It has forgotten what made it great. I'm talking about having the audience emotionally touched by Peter Parker's struggle, having mind-blowing actions that leaves the audience in awe, and the impact of the dialogues that inspires.

My suspect is that the filmmakers tried to put too much into this movie. There must be something somewhere that went amiss producing it.

Let me explain. While the main focus of the film revolves around our hero's disposition from fighting the darkness that exists in him, there were too many sub-plots that took away and undermine it. There was the love story between Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) and Mary Jane Watson (Kirsten Dunst). There was the meaning of friendship between Peter Parker and Harry Osborn (James Franco). There was Sandman (Thomas Haden Church) being linked to the murder of Uncle Ben (Cliff Robertson). And there was Venom (Topher Grace).

With so many motives to act out, it is inevitable that the film would fall short. There are too many pieces in this puzzle too trying to piece together in one film, despite its length. The tempo is really slow right from the start. If not for the hilarious-ness of some scenes, with quite a few notably of James Jameson (J.K. Simmons), Peter's boss at the Daily Bugle, the movie can be considered rather dry for a comic genre film.

Sandman and Venom, the main villains, were not well depicted. There were supposed to be much more about them, yet in the film they were reduced to just mere bad guys with bad luck that ultimately led them to become Spider-Man's foe. Character play is weak.

It is agonizing to see Spider-Man 3 following X-Men 3's path of condensing story lines and mixing in Superman Returns's mellow love story attempt. This is not the best formula for an inspirational Superhero movie.

The last fight sequence toward the end where Spider-Man battles Sandman and Venom though became the savior for this Superhero film. Thank goodness for it.

All in all, "With great power comes great responsibilities" wasn't that great. But I'll like to agree with this message that Spider-Man 3 brings and that is in life we are given choices, some will lead to good and some will be bad. When confronted can you do the right thing?

Aunt May (Rosemary Harris) told Peter Parker in the film, "Do yourself a favor by first doing the most difficult thing, forgive yourself."

All of us had made choices in our lives. For all those that went wrong, there is no longer anything we can do about them, but we can always learn from them so we can make right choices in time to come.

At least that part in Spider-Man 3 is right. "May" Spider-Man 4 be "right" after 3.

5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Fracture (2007)

6/10

Movie Review: Fracture

19 April 2007

The definition of the word "fracture" means to break. If everything has a weakness then that weakness shall be where it can fracture. Ted Crawford (Anthony Hopkins), the meticulous structural engineer claims that if looked closely enough, we can find a weakness in everything. He said it in such devious terms when he looked into the eyes of Willy Beachum (Ryan Gosling), his prosecutor. He had found Beachum's weakness. Beachum is cocky, egoistic and doesn't like to lose. With the prosecutor already having his feet on the clouds, Crawford has found the perfect opportunity.

Crawford had shot his wife, confessed to it and refused a lawyer. This is straightforward for district attorney Willy Beachum, the defendant had confessed, the evidence gathered and witnesses called upon, the scale is weighing heavily in his favor. This is after all his last case before his big move to highly reputable law firm, Wooton Sims. An easy case, a great new prospect and a gorgeous new boss (Rosamund Pike) waits in the horizon. Things could not be better, brighter and simpler. Only thing is it is not. If it were then the film means nothing.

This is it. The fracture. The law states "Innocent until proved guilty". The evidence, the gun that Crawford shot his wife with ended up useless. It has never been fired. The key witness, detective Rob Nunally (Billy Burke) who took the confession off Crawford was nullified. There was reasonable doubt that the detective had threatened the defendant into confession. Detective Nunally had an affair with Mrs. Crawford (Embeth Davidtz). Without new evidence, Ted Crawford would walk free. The table is turned.

Willy Beachum can end up with nothing. He could have walk away but he wouldn't. He wants to win. But how could he? He has nothing to prove Crawford shot his wife. He has to make a case out of nothing. He wants to prove that he can win. Things can only get more interesting or worse.

I was waiting to see what happens next. Could Beachum prove that Crawford shot his wife? More importantly could Fracture prove to be dramatically suspenseful playing on the aspect of legal technicality? It looks increasingly like a fracture to Fracture as the case wears on.

More questions were raised but without an increase in intensity to the drama. I'm not sure why Crawford did not tease Beachum more. Maybe Anthony Hopkins did not want to awake the Hannibal Lector in him by playing the psychology down. Beachum with his career on the line could not master enough desperation and emotion. He looks surprisingly unbreakable. The only guy who broke was detective Nunally. It was quite unbelievable.

No evidence, no evidence and no evidence. The story is clever, but it was not clever enough. As with all suspense movies, all will be revealed towards the end. That part is undisputable. The only thing is there really should been more tension. That should be how the game should be played. But there was too many of Gosling and too little of Hopkins. I would have love to see more of Rosamund Pike and Billy Burke who are in their own right terrific actors. Scenes where they appeared, the temperature raised. When the two of them gave up and left the running entirely to Gosling, it somehow signaled a bad last stretch right to the end.

I saw the fracture so to speak. And it left me broken. The film told a certain truth and proved it.

"If you look close enough, you'll find everyone has a weak spot." Sigh.

4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Breach (2007)

8/10

Movie Review: Breach

14 April 2007

"I'm much safer if you know little about me." Robert Hanssen is probably right. But that is exactly why we want to know about him, the man behind the United States worst security breach.

For 22 years, this man, a FBI agent evaded getting caught. He single handedly sold American secrets to the Soviet Union in exchange for $1.4million in cash and diamonds. With all his smarts he was finally brought down on 18 Feb 2001, by a rookie, Eric O'Neill. It took just 2 months and Hanssen's days of espionage was over, end of story. Big question. Why was he caught?

This is where it begins. Robert Hanssen played by Academy Award winner (Best Supporting Actor), Chris Cooper, is the main character for this film titled Breach. This movie is inspired by a true story, the true story about the worst security breach in United States history. Oh sorry, I've already mentioned it. If you're paying attention, I've succeeded in breaching into your mind. Read on.

No doubt it has already been said and done, Robert Hanssen has done and has been undone. This movie shows not what he did nor was it really about how Eric O'Neill (Ryan Phillippe) the rookie, bringing him to justice. What am I talking about? Are you thinking yet?

This film won't show you what and how Hanssen did it. This film won't leave you in suspense as to how O'Neill did it. There are few actions, thrills and excitement. But the dialogues will keep this film going. Kate Burroughs, the FBI staffer in charge of O'Neill needs to figure things out. Eric O'Neill, the rookie agent who is key to the success of the investigation needs to figure things out. Robert Hanssen, the man being investigated needs to figure things out. That leaves just you left to figure this movie out.

A good film needs no shouting to capture your attention. It will put you in the mood instead. The mood of this film is slow, steady and calm. It gives you enough space to think about Hanssen. This film is about who Hanssen is. What kind of a man would betray his own country?

Chris Cooper did a brilliant job bringing out Hanssen's character. That itself defined Breach. This is a thinker's film so try not to fall asleep. Without close attention you could fail to secure the meaning of the film. You'll need to get to a certain depth before you can start swimming. Playing on the surface won't get you anywhere. Think about the word breach and what it has got to do with Hanssen's character.

Robert Hanssen knew something that we all don't. Eric O'Neill asked Kate Burroughs (Laura Linney), "What if he's smarter than I am?" She replied, "He spent the last 20 years out-thinking Russian spies. He's smarter than all of us." Hanssen was spared the death penalty but is serving life in prison. When he was caught he said this, "Perhaps now they'll listen." Will you listen?

Breach has a strong leading cast in Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillippe and Laura Linney and equally good supporting cast in Dennis Haysbert, Caroline Dhavernas, Gary Cole and Kathleen Quinlan. The directing (Billy Ray) and art direction (Tak Fujimoto) is masterful as it brought out the mood of the film. Much credit also has to go to the writers and producers. Their experience behind films like Training Day, The Last Samurai and Shattered Glass served Breach well. The same can be said for the music composition by Mychael Danna. I'll say this again. The movie doesn't shout, it speaks softly yet surely, immersing its audience into its mood. Still water runs deep.

It is as if portraying how Hanssen committed the worst breach in United States history. This film has no interest in making headlines, just history.

3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Last Mimzy (2007)

6/10

Movie Review: The Last Mimzy

13 April 2007

In a garden filled with a sea of color, a woman tells a story to attentive children. A story of importance for it saved humanity. It is the story of The Last Mimzy where two siblings, the elder, Noah (Chris O'Neil), a boy, and the younger, Emma (Rhiannon Leigh Wryn), a girl, who found a strange box while vacationing over Easter weekend with their parents.

In the box were strange objects and a stuffed rabbit named Mimzy. Being kids, Noah and Emma are fascinated with their newfound toys and without warning they developed amazing abilities playing with them. Their mom, Jo (Joely Richardson), felt distant as a result of it. Their dad, David (Timothy Hutton), think nothing of it, choosing to believe that his once ordinary kids are just growing up to their potential.

Stranger things followed and they do not go unnoticed. Noah became incredibly intelligent in science while Emma developed psychic abilities. These abilities are out of this world, amazing yet terrifying. Noah's science teacher, Larry (Rainn Wilson) and his spiritual fiancée, Naomi (Kathryn Hahn) is the first to take an interest in the children. Larry noticed the strange drawings that Noah had drawn were those he kept seeing in his dreams. These drawings hold spiritual meanings to humanity's past and future. The toys even caused a massive state blackout that alerted the authorities.

Just what are these toys about? What purpose do they serve? There are questions that needed answers. And they all point to one source, Mimzy the rabbit, that only Emma can relate.

The Last Mimzy is a movie loosely adapted from the acclaimed science fiction short story, Mimsy Were the Borogoves, written in 1943 by Lewis Padgett (the pseudonym of husband and wife team Henry Kuttner and C. L. Moore). I read the excerpt of the short story which can be found on the official website and it was brilliantly written, detailed and intriguing. The movie however fell rather short on these qualities despite the names behind the scene that were involved in films like Close Encounters of the Third Kind and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Perhaps simplification was considered so kids can understand the film better. I really do not know but mostly the movie is unspectacular, preferring a more direct story telling approach. The trailer was well done however so it became contradicting.

The stars of the movie no less were the siblings, Noah and Emma. After all, children are the key to the future. This focus is consistent throughout the film. Being a family film, the movie speaks to remind parents and adults to pay more careful attention to the children and their development. Negative exposures, which are becoming more and more apparent at this modern age, can affect the future. And the children are the future.

On a less serious perspective, which everyone can relate, is imagination. In the movie we can see the difference between an adult and a child. The thinking process, the judgment, and the way the world is seen are in contrast. Children are the world's best teachers in imagination and creativity. Everyone can do with some imagination on a daily level to make life meaningful. Watching the children, their innocence, pure nature and energy, an adult may realized that what once were simple joy can no longer be found in themselves. We all seem to have forgotten what simple joy was when there used to be a child in all of us. Where is that child now? Lost?

Mimzy is just a stuffed rabbit you say. That is because you probably haven't heard Emma. "This is Mimzy. She's my teacher. She teaches me everything." Emma will tell you with a sparkle in her eyes. That is why perhaps "The future is trying to tell us something".

1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Pursuit of Happyness (2006)

8/10

Movie Review: The Pursuit Of Happiness

7 April 2007

It is a struggle to sit through two hours watching The Pursuit Of Happiness. The film is painful to watch. The movie aimed a sharp arrow right at your heart and there was nowhere to run. The Pursuit Of Happiness is inspired by the true story of Chris Gardner, a Wall Street legend. In this heartfelt two hours you'll find Chris Gardner pursuing his happiness as he kept running and running from one part of his life to another.

"Happiness" here is spelt with the letter "Y" instead of the letter "I". Chris Gardner (Will Smith) complains about the spelling of the word that was painted outside a childcare centre where he goes to pick up his 5-year-old son, Christopher (Jaden Smith), in the beginning of the film.

Chris Gardner was an unhappy man. He's a salesman for a bone-density scanner that doctors think it as a luxury medical item and thus his poor sales record. Poor sales mean no money and no money means no love. That is how the story goes.

Constantly challenged by the lack of security, Chris Gardner remained strong, largely motivated by his sense of responsibility to his son. Linda (Thandie Newton), his wife has chosen to leave him. Without a shelter over his head and without money in his pocket, he made the biggest decision in his life to go on an internship with Dean Witters as a stockbroker. This is his ticket to a place he calls "Happiness".

To get there though was no walk in the park, Chris Gardner's character was tested on every level. Often he is seen in a state of desperation and despair, but he never gave up on his dreams. He has a talent, and that talent was perseverance while at the same time he was smart. The only problem was that it was uncertain whether he could rise to that potential. The internship program would take six months, and there was no salary. At the end of those six months only one out of the twenty in the program would be hired. Now, what kind of a person would take such a risk? The answer would be a "Stupid" person. Stupid is not the same as being silly or being an idiot. To move forward, perhaps it is wise to first acknowledge your stupidity.

In any good film, there ought to be a defining moment. When Chris Gardner told off his son while his son was enjoying playing basketball, he reflected and he said this to his son:

"Don't ever let somebody tell you you can't do something, not even me all right"

"You got a dream you got to protect it. People can't do something themselves, they wanna tell you you can't do it."

"You want something, go get it. Period."

Is this movie any good? It's good. Period.

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

TMNT (2007)

7/10

Movie Review: TMNT

7 April 2007

TMNT: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. This one is for the fans and it goes way back to about two decades ago. From cartoon (television) to plastic suits (movie version) and now thanks to CGI the turtles are back! Better than ever.

What are they up to this time?

Ever since Archenemy The Shredder has long been defeated, team leader Leonardo (James Arnold Taylor) has been sent away by Zen Master Splinter (Mako) for training, Donatello (Mitchell Whitfield), Michelangelo (Mikey Kelley) and Raphael (Nolan North) have grown distant from each other and days of crime fighting are over.

Crime doesn't stop though, and a new danger arise, that of evil dated some 3000 years ago. Strange events are happening in New York City. Tech-industrialist Max Winters (Patrick Stewart) is gathering an army of ancient monsters. The mysterious Foot Clan led by Karai (Ziyi Zhang), in the absence of Shredder are now putting their ninja skills to aid Mr. Winters. The world is under threat once again and our green heroes are needed.

But not before they are a team again.

Brotherhood has come into question. The turtles are not what they used to be. Their individual personality has got the better of them. Michelangelo is carefree and fun loving, Donatello is smart and a tech geek, Raphael is rash and fearless, and Leonardo is serious and headstrong. Four characters of different qualities can clash with one another.

In this movie that clash is apparent between Raphael and Leonardo. It is not hard to realize that Raphael and Leonardo do exist in each of us. One is eager to make things happen and the other to assess the situation and make the correct decision. It is a constant struggle between the two. Everyday we fight within ourselves. Who do we allow to win or are we able to find that balance?

To win we often require the help of friends. The turtles found their friendship in the form of long time allies April O'Neil (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and Casey Jones (Chris Evans). Between the two of them we see also a sparkle of love. Sweet.

An attraction to the lure of the dark side can also be found through Karai (Ziyi Zhang). An added dimension to the film it is. The big boys would absolutely love the mysterious sexy appeal of her independence and confidence.

CGI has really brought TMNT to life. All restrictions of previous movies are cancelled. This is an evolution. And it is state of the art. Much credit certainly has to go to director Kevin Munroe, who wrote and directed this film. (A big thank you for reviving the turtles)

Through CGI, Munroe was able to bring us closer to the characters. The use of angles and framing were terrific. Every scene felt like we were there with the characters, feeling their every mood. These are details made for a very good reason. I would think that the director wants to close that proximity between the screen and the audience.

What is enjoyable as well is the styling of the virtual environment. From a visual point of view, it is all so cool. In Michelangelo's vocabulary it means "Dudes That rock!"

This movie will sure gain some cult following even though the story is not fantastic. It's not bad though. Every good adventure has to start somewhere and it'll definitely be interesting to see more "Cowa-Bunga!" actions from the turtles. After all we now have them reunited so it would be a pity to separate them again. I'm sure the narrator (Laurence Fishburne) would like to tell us another story.

What more can I say? I'm a turtle fan with a little bit of blue, red, purple and orange in me. Which one are you?

1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Freedom Writers (2007)

9/10

Movie Review: Freedom Writers

7 April 2007

Freedom Writers appears to have a typical script. An aspiring young teacher goes out of her way to help and inspire her lowly students. A plot like this can make an inspiring movie. Now add this, Freedom Writers is based on a true story. This gives proximity. It could be a nice movie. Now put Hilary Swank as the lead in the film. This movie could be good with the two-time Academy Award winner starring in it. But in reality you still may not want to watch this movie.

I found myself walking into the cinema knowing only 3 things about Freedom Writers: 1. Freedom Writers is the title of the film. 2. The plot is based on a true story. 3. Hilary Swank.

Why then watch it?

I was intrigued by the film title. I wanted to know what happened to the students and how the teacher helped them. I knew that the students wrote journals. I knew that by writing about our feelings and thoughts it helps in the discovery and development of finding and affirming one's self-worth. Writing is a good outlet for your inner voice to be heard and it needs to be expressed. Writing releases us from the emotional walls that block us in. We felt trapped, stressed and helpless. This usually leads to outwardly negative behaviours. The students in the film showed these effects.

I was looking for inspiration. I got more than inspiration. I got hope. Erin Gruwell (Hilary Swank) provided it. When no one cared for the students, she dared. She refused to believe her students were "unteachable" as branded by other teachers and the academic system. To begin with, the students did not even want to be helped. But with high moral integrity she showed the highest esteem a human being could get, and yet in her humble words she only wanted to do her job.

"To get respect you first have to give respect." It cannot be truer. Erin Gruwell respected every student in his or her own right. She made it a point to understand and not judge, to look under the surface.

The synopsis hardly gives this movie enough credit. Get this. This is a true story. The influence should be greater. This is the real deal. Someone in our society made a difference.

After watching it, I had this thought: "Why hadn't more been done to promote this film?" I mean this is a film I felt everyone should see. I understand that this film may not have the commercial value of movies that can be more entertaining in the sense that it is not comedic, it is not thrilling, there are no hard hitting action, there are no adventure to be told, there are no mystery to be solved, and it may not even be the most touching movie ever made, but it is a powerful film with a strong message that can be applied to every individual and community.

It is powerful because like the students in the film, we had or could have met the same situations in life. Put it simply, we were once or could be teenagers and students, we have different family backgrounds, we go through the similar process of growing up, should you dig deeper into your past and more of these relations should appear. There is a big lesson here to be learned for if we think our problems are big, we probably are not aware of the larger world around us. If we hate or are critical of others it's probably because we do not understand what is really happening. It is all too easy to categorize and stereotype others. When we see one monkey we had seen them all we tell ourselves. But we are not monkeys, we are people, no doubt our diversity in language, culture and skin tone, we are people nonetheless. We do not recognize that we have much in common and we do not give respect enough to each other.

We fill the world with images of war, violence and hate. Why? Is this the right thing to do? If that is all the young ones get exposed to then these will be what we will get. What values are we imparting to the world? We couldn't care less could we?

I like the way director Richard LaGravenese detailed the scene in the beginning of the film where the two senior teachers paid attention to Erin Gruwell's pearl necklace when first introduced to her. I'm quite sure the intention was to reflect how most of us view the world around us. I leave you to figure it out.

Lastly, Freedom Writers say you can make a difference. I say you can start by watching this film.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Rocky Balboa (2006)

8/10

Movie Review: Rocky Balboa

7 April 2007

"It ain't about how hard you hit, It's about how hard you can get hit, and keep moving forward." -Rocky Balboa

This is Sylvester Stallone's six installment of the Rocky series. And it is the final chapter. But one that saves itself for one good punch.

Sylvester Stallone writes, directs and stars in all the "Rocky" stories.

In "Rocky Balboa", Rocky (Sylvester Stallone) is a retired former champion of the ring. He now owns an Italian restaurant and entertains his patrons with his stories of glory days. Remembered as one of the greatest boxer of all time, his fans love him. Days without boxing can be so hard for a former champ.

The current boxing world has a new champion, young, fast, skillful, undefeated but unappreciated. He is a champion that never really proved himself. He was never really tested in the ring. They say he hasn't got the heart of a real champion. It was all too easy. Unloved, hated and booed, he's a tortured figure who is pained as much as he had anger. His name is Mason "The Line" Dixon (Antonio Tarver).

Heavyweight boxing is becoming a bore until a computer simulation cast the two of them together in a virtual match. An old great vs a young champ proves to be highly marketable. Suddenly there came an opportunity for the two boxers to release what they had inside of them. One that says he still has one good fight in him, and the other to tell the world that he is worthy of the title.

Sports films are always made out to be inspirational. Rocky Balboa is the inspiration.

There is a lot of character in this movie. One can tell by observing the settings of this film. The scenes held deep meanings, if one is sensitive enough. The stories behind each character move the story slowly into a fitting end. Rocky is punching his way into the hearts of others. That punch gained strength towards the final showdown.

The body ages but the heart remains strong seems to be the message. Life in itself is constantly throwing those punches at you, getting you down, putting you off track. Without realization you look in the mirror and maybe you cannot even recognize yourself anymore. Time to look within. Fall victim or pick yourself up and clench those fists? What are you made of?

After all, fighters fight. Right?

2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

300 (2006)

9/10

Movie Review: 300

7 April 2007

You will not enjoy this. 300 the movie that is. If you hate battles, bloodshed, nudity, gore, and especially if you are of Persian ancestry, I urge you to stay away from the movie. This is no enmity to get into.

But if you are willing to walk into the theatre with unclouded eyes, then by all means buy that ticket, sit really tight and enjoy the visually stunning film.

"300" is the adaptation of Frank Miller's graphic novel and directed by the talented Zack Snyder.

The story is about an ancient battle that took place in Thermopylae where King Leonidas and his 300 Spartans warrior battled in glory and honour.

Their enemy is an invading army led by the self-proclaimed "King of Kings", Xerxes. His army is as numerous as it is insurmountable.

Courage is an understatement for the Spartans.

By impression to be all violent and gore, the movie is actually elemental in humanity and beauty. It is story telling of enormous captivity, trilling and emotional. This film is highly graphic with its amount of details in every scene. CGI aside, notice the colours that were used to paint every mood. Admire the camera angles that dynamically transform the idea on screen. Do grasp tightly for the tension is compelling.

Greed, deceit, betrayal Arrogance, imprudence, valiant Slavery, mystic, lust and more

Humanity is raw, beastly and loving.

Think not towards that this film as brainless fighting, making blood spills and amputations its entertainment. Think towards an idea of mythology, fantasy, the ethos of graphic novels being skillfully crafted by its makers. This film is not for the weak but for the brave.

Notice the minimal descriptive leads of the "300" story in this writing. The concept of "300" is simple, but the execution is perfection. And much saved for your viewing pleasure, if you dare.

6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Shooter (I) (2007)

7/10

Movie Review: Shooter

7 April 2007

"Yesterday was about honor. Today is about justice." The movie tagline accurately justifies what the film Shooter is about. Mark Wahlberg stars as the marksman or elite marine scout sniper who was betrayed on a "peace-keeping" mission. Later after surviving the betrayal he was called upon by his country again, this time to stop a presidential assassination. For honor he accepted the mission but history repeated. Framed and on the run as presidential assassin, this time he want justice.

Shooter the movie is based on the novel, Point of Impact by Stephen Hunter. Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg) is the main character for the story. His expertise and dedication to the craft of shooting became his poison. He is the best and the best is often sort after but not always look after. There are treacherous people around us with evil agendas. Things are not always what it seem. It is just when you thought you had everything figured out that you start falling, a little wisdom spoken by the film.

Fortunately for Bob Lee Swagger, an honorable man with a distinctive ability earned him allies in the form of rookie federal agent, Nick Memphis (Michael Pena) and the widow of his former scout sniper partner, Sarah Fenn (Kate Mara). Through their help he seeks to restore his honor, balance the beam of justice and uncover the bigger conspiracy that surrounds him.

Honestly this film really began very well. Bob Lee Swagger displayed his mettle of an elite sniper. The gun fighting action raised the adrenaline and expectation of the film. The film director is Antoine Fuqua of Training Day (2001) after all. There was conspiracy, car chases and hard-hitting actions. What is most impressive is Bob Lee Swagger's ability of survival and unsurpassed marksmanship. The very system that trained him to survive now wants him dead. How much more exciting can it get?

Perhaps there were too many targets to aim for with just a single sniper. No doubt Mark Wahlberg played his role very well as the expressionless, cool and intimidating marine sniper but the film in general was missing a lot of targets and thus lost much intensity and grip. As much as the degree of expertise Bob Lee Swagger demonstrated, there was little to engage the audience into the inner world of his, and what this main character of the movie is really about. That focus or the lack of it was not present.

The greater scale of the story of having a conspiracy seems to have taken an ill effect. It was not sure what was to figure. Was it the shooter or the conspiracy?

In the end Bob Lee Swagger became the invincible, much like Rambo, but less charm, only the brawns and immense shooting ability to kill. That in his own hands became his justice.

Which guy doesn't like guns and which gal doesn't like a hotshot? Impressive shooting but the target might not go down. Not by a long shot.

12 out of 23 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

The Reaping (2007)

7/10

Movie Review: The Reaping

7 April 2007

Warning: Spoilers

Ten Biblical Plagues, a former Christian missionary who lost faith in God and science vs religion. These do make a good idea for a movie and what better than to have Hilary Swank in it. To make things more interesting, the Ten Biblical Plagues actually led to the parting of the Red Sea and the Ten Commandments according to religion. Incidentally The Reaping makes its opening day on the 5th of April which coincided with what is know as the last of the Ten Biblical Plague, "Death of the First Born", which occurred on April 2nd and is celebrated every year to commemorate the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt.

In The Reaping, former Christian missionary, Katherine (Hilary Swank) began the movie by dismissing 48 miracles or religious signs to logical scientific explanations. Why would someone who formerly believed in God do that?

Just as it appears that miracles are nothing but unexplained and misunderstood happenings preying on the minds of men, a sign or a message appeared. Was it for real or hoax?

Then a man from a religious small town came looking for Katherine seeking help. A boy died and their river turned red. Could it be the beginning of another Ten Biblical Plagues? And who is the mysterious little girl involved in all these?

Supernatural, horror, suspense and thriller make up The Reaping. In typical genre fashion, we follow Katherine (Hilary Swank) to uncover what is really going on. Could science overcome religion this time? As the story unfolds with religious references, scientific assumptions and the plagues happening one by one, it became a situational mental tug-of-war. Katherine's beliefs are challenged.

Fans of the genre will either like or dislike movie like this. It's hard to come to an in between conclusion, although it is usually what this sort of film wants, personal discretion. It is best to have an open mind to expect the unexpected and not to be too smart by focusing your attention to your assumptions instead. Waiting for that one gruesome scene? Waiting for a really scary moment? Or waiting for one breakthrough surprising moment?

Be careful of where those intentions lie, for you may just miss the plot too early too soon. The Reaping actually scores low on the scare factor although it has elements of horror through some louder scenes and clever camera tricks. What it does instead is to challenge your beliefs since it is religiously themed. The story follows Katherine so be Katherine. You have a choice of either debunking what you see with critical analysis or let the story takes you where it wants you to go with what it wants you to see. That is how a supernatural, horror, suspense, thriller works.

This movie probably won't blow your mind away but it is enjoyable. The cast is good with Hilary Swank as the lead, AnnaSophia Robb is the mysterious girl, David Morrissey's role is convincing, and Idris Elba and Stephen Rea did sufficiently well in support. Director Stephen Hopkins could have made this film more spectacular and lengthen the 90 minutes though. Catch the film late at night for it adds to the experience.

Overall, The Reaping is interesting but where your own interest lies otherwise is totally up to your beliefs, as what to this movie speaks.

After all, you reap what you sow. Be warned.

64 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

andydreamseeker

Reviews

Tell Your Friends

Recently Viewed