You reap what you SOWyau

The Wolverine (James Mangold, 2013)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Sun, 28 Jul 2013 18:16:00 +0000

The man with the adamantium skeleton is back. No "X-Men" word in the title, just his name, Wolverine AKA Logan goes solo for the second time after X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Hood, 2009). The comic story arc of Wolverine in Japan is well known among X-Men-philes. So expect to see Katana wielding samurai and ninjas.

The prologue shows Logan being held captive by the Japanese troops in Nagasaki during WW2. The American B-52 bomber was coming to drop the A-Bomb, he saved Yashida's life, a Japanese soldier. Switching back to current time, we see Logan had nightmares about his former lover Jean Grey (Famkee Janssen returned, remind me of the creepy Leonardo Di Caprio character's wife in Nolan's Inception). The remorse Logan is haunted by his past, the guilt consumes him in many ways. He went for secluded life in the wild, this is where the plot picks up after the event in X-Men: The Last Stand (Ratner, 2006).

This fish-out-of-water plot shows how Logan is called upon to bid farewell to his long time friend, a dying old man Yashida, who he saved half a century ago. Yashida is grateful for Logan's deed and wants to repay him by offering something that everyone has, except him: Mortality. The so called mortality curse possessed by Logan has already been made clear in the previous X-Men Origins movie. The idea of wiping off the Wolverine's memory is essentially the same as ending his life. Things get knotty when Yashida's grand daughter, Mariko is hunted by Yakuza gangs, this is where Wolverine cross swords (or cross swords with claws for that matter) with his opponents.

If there is one movie the bankable star Hugh Jackman guarantee to carry a movie on his own, it is the portrayal of the resentful feral mutant which makes him always watchable. From the three X-men movies, to the spin-off X-Men Origins: Wolverine, down to the eye catching cameo appearance in prequel X-Men: First Class. Having said that, in this latest chapter, the lack of memorable supporting casts and the decent script let him down big time. Logan's supposedly love interest, Mariko, besides he saves her from suicide and escape with her during the funeral scene, where is their sudden mutual affection coming from? Pure bad writing, period. Then there is the red-haired Yukio, bodyguard (do not ask me why) of Logan, who serves little purpose in the movie.

I will not be the minority who think Logan fighting with the gun-trotting Yakuza members is not as exciting as fighting with another equally matched mutants, is it? The lack of worthy villains soften the intensity factor. The blonde who played the forked tongue mutant, who I reckon her special ability is ..... spreading disease (?) and superhuman strength (?), hardly a third tier X-Men character in special power hierarchy. Are we suppose to believe she can challenge Wolverine's superiority? Then there is this finale's villain (the name I should remain a secret) disinterested me by the time the plot got to there.

The funeral set piece is one of the highlights and the prologue is the best scene in the entire movie, it just went down hill afterwards. The plot does not bring anything new to the table, aside from he is in a culturally different territory and temporary loses the self-healing power. I yawned as much as Wolverine's adamantium claws pop out from his fists throughout the movie. As far as a X-Men theme movie goes, I am surprise by the bland effort.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Man of Steel (Zack Snyder, 2013)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Sat, 13 Jul 2013 16:06:00 +0000

* * * * *

Jor-El: You will give the people an ideal to strive towards. They will race behind you, they will stumble, they will fall. But in time, they will join you in the sun. In time, you will help them accomplish wonders.

* * * * *

Jonathan Kent: You are the answer, son. You are the answer to "are we alone in the universe".

Young Clark Kent : Can I just .... keep pretending I am your son?
Jonathan Kent: You are my son. And I have to believe that you were sent here for a reason. And even if it takes the rest of your life, you owe it to yourself to find out what that reason is.

* * * * *

Jonathan Kent: [to young Clark Kent] You are not just anyone. One day, you are going to have to make a choice. You have to decide what kind of man you want to grow up to be. Whoever that man is, good character or bad, it's going to change the world.

* * * * *

Look, it's a no longer a bird, nor is a plane......it's Superman Begins! For decades since 1970s, Christopher Reeve was the person who made us believe a man could fly on the screen. The moment our favourite Kryptonian son dons the blue suit with red cape, bearing the "S" symbol on his chest, he is among the most recognized icon in the world. Bryan Singer briefly revived the immortalized superhero in 2006 but not quite able to make a lasting impression from the mainstream audience notably the comic book geeks.

The movie studio has a massive task to make a Superman movie without the heavily potential cheesy factor. We all know he is the beacon of Hope, Truth and Justice, he is the saviour of mankind, the Mr Nice Guy. He has no weakness, virtually indestructable (OK calm down, kryptonite does not rear its head yet). Deep down he did not suffer from childhood trauma unlike Bruce Wayne, who has tragically lost his parents during early days, Batman was a vigilante blinded by the rage and vengeance he vowed to take. Contrariwise, Superman is always portrayed as a jolly good fellow inside out. Let's be honest, a do-gooder character is boring, modern sophisticated audience wants to know how and why is the do-gooder's inner struggling with, or has he got any dark secret waiting to be unveiled.

Zack Snyder, who was handed the directorial task, must have expect a walk in the park. After all he directed the visually astounding 300 and Watchmen movies. The gestation of Man of Steel actually came from the teaming of Christopher Nolan and David S. Goyer, the powerhouse that brought us The Dark Knight trilogy. Does that mean we can expect the same dark and gritty approach of re-booting Superman? Well, not really. What Goyer and Nolan did was to emphasize Kal-El as an isolated alien, not merely instilling him as a superhero from planet Krypton. Man of Steel is a loosely retelling of Superman I and II movies (in 1978 and 1980) minus the villain character Lex Luthor. The prologue was panned out as in 1978's version, planet Krypton was on the brink of destruction, the newly born Kal-El was forced to send away to Earth by his biological parents. In this new version, we get to see more of the Kryptonian's world and their technology. We get to find out about their social structure as well. It is notable to mention that the Superman suit underwent a major facelift. The suit was revamped to darker coloured with textured surface, ditching red undergarment (hooray to that!) and yellow belt although the red cape remains. the "S" crest was engraved.

Briton Henry Cavill gaves a self assured Superman-esque performance, Christopher Reeve would have nodded with approval. He looks muscularly imposing in the newly designed suit, and the alter-ego gawky Clark Kent portrayal is nowhere to be seen yet. The two patriarch figures portrayed by Russell Crowe as Jor-El and Kevin Costner as Papa Kent are my favourite parts. Despite not having much screen time, they certainly left a lasting impression. Hope to see more of them for the coming sequel.

I am all for non linear narration depicting what makes Superman the person he is, how the lonely descendant of Krypton was nurtured by his adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha in a small town farm from Kansas. While trying to find out about his true identity and his purpose in this world, he was cautioned by papa Kent not to reveal his super human abilities eventhough lives may be at stake. Those tiny details such as the first time the very young Clark discovered his power and could not control it added a nice touch to it. The way the screenplay panned out in the first half, told in bits and pieces flashbacks makes this movie such a winner. The riveting first half is about the destruction of Krypton planet to how Clark Kent embarking on quest to discover his true origin. The latter part is all about the arrival of villains General Zod et al and how the world discovered an alien has been living among them.

I do felt the movie suffered from narrative pacing problem in the second half of the movie, where the big fighting sequence between Superman and General Zod et al is a tad overkill. I have not timed it, it could be a straight 20 minutes of Superman and General Zod punching each other out. See how Metropolis' skyscrapers tumbling down, people fleeing and perishing, it is the same old, same old stuffs like watching Transformers movies. I would trade Superman and Zod punching each other scenes with Clark Kent character development scenes in a heartbeat.

This movie could be the classic in the making if not marred by the never ending CGI fighting sequence at the end. Man of Steel is now the definitive version in modern time to tell the story of Kal-El origin. In fact I boldly proclaim that this movie is going to be better with repeated viewings, as what I thought of Batman Begins (Nolan, 2005)

Unforgettable scene: It gave me a shiver to see the Clark Kent kid with the red cape plays with the dog under the watching eyes of papa Kent, it is so poetically awesome, the signature fists-on-his-hip pose with the fluttering cape!

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Iron Man 3 (Shane Black, 2013)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 25 Jun 2013 17:41:00 +0000

Back in year 2008, the first Iron Man movie was introduced to the cinematic world. It kickstarted the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), paved the way for the character of Hulk, Thor, Captain America to star in their standalone movie under the banner of Marvel Studios. Phase 1 of MCU ended with a bang in The Avengers (Whedon, 2012).

So now what can Iron Man 3 offers to us apart from having to face new villain? The latest installment has Tony Stark suffered from post traumatic stress disorder, he has nightmare sleeping at night or not sleeping at all. You may wonder why a super wealthy guy having a girl he loves and who can literally build anything any man can built has anything to worry about? Well, simply put, he is just a man in a can after all. The entire chapter in The Avengers was a whole new ballgame for Tony Stark. He discovered about alien invasion, demi-god from other dimension (Thor and Loki). He went into wormhole, fought with alien and almost die from it. Bear in mind in pre-Avengers movie timeline, since his escape from the Afganistan cave, he only fought with terrorist and mortal human beings with armour.

The new nemesis, in the form of The Mandarin, I love how the great Ben Kingsley portrays the menacing and wacky role. He has a significant different origin and character compare to the comic books. The dashing looking Guy Pearce plays Aldrich Killian, the inventor of Extremis virus and which may or may not has close allied with The Mandarin. The twist plotline about The Mandarin and Aldrich Killian may not goes down well with comic book purists, I admit it kind of take away Mandarin's authoritative presence in the end, despite the cleverness of the disguise plot. Then of course Gwyneth Paltrow returns as Tony's love interest Pepper Potts, who has a bigger role this time. Happy Hogan who was no longer a body guard to Tony Stark anymore, What? Tony Stark needs a bodyguard? War Machine was re-painted in red, blue and white, in case you do not aware of the flag-waving spirit, it was renamed to Iron Patriot for the sake of the obviousness.

Jon Favreau, the director of first two Iron Man movies replaced by Shane Black, who I did not notice stamping any distinctive directorial mark in the movie, however as a co-screentwriter, his snippy one-liners are reminicence of his 1980s & 1990s buddy cop movies. You can really see the technology advance of the metal suit throughout the Iron Man trilogy, frrom the crude prototype from Afganistan mountain cave to the brief case-like Suit as in Monte Carlo scene in second movie. Now Tony Stark is able to use neuro-controlled headgear to command his armour suit assemble to his body piece by piece. Moreover, he has a whole army of unmanned Iron Man at his disposal.

The middle act of the movie is set in a small town during Christmas season (in fact the whole movie is). Tony Stark takes shelter befriends a boy, need his assistance to recharge his iron suit. Here is where the storyline strip off his armoury complacency. When he is in the Iron Man suit, there is nothing onslaught that he cannot address (just remember what he went through with his Avengers fellows). Take away his hi tech suit, all left underneath is his resourcefulness to turn things around, a side that we seldom get to see.

I will never get tired of watching Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, I would bring up the old cliche of "he was born to play this role" if I have to, seriously I just cannnot see other actor who will be as charmingly arrogant as he is. "I am Iron Man", he quipped. What stand out from other Iron Man story is, Tony Stark does not hide behind the mask of Iron Man, he does not shy away of letting the whole world knows that he is Iron Man indeed. It is important to know that at the end the movie, I am still eager for another chapter of Tony Stark story. The viewing experience of Iron Man 3 is marginally enjoyable than the pedecessor, while the first and original Iron Man movie is still my favourite among three

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino, 2012)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Wed, 08 May 2013 17:00:00 +0000

"D-j-a-n-g-o, the D is silent"

The D may be silent, but the sound of flesh wound's splattering blood signals the return of the flamboyant Quentin Tarantino (QT). After a 3 years hiatus followed by WWII Nazi occupied revenge tale, my favourite auteur is back with another revenge theme western genre, I repeat, Quentin did western, can it get any cooler than it sounds? The answer is a resounding yes.

I bet he still having the fond memory from watching countless of western movies such as Django (Corbucci, 1966) and Sergio Leone's Dollar trilogy et al which help create the whole Spaghetti Western fad. Though I must say it is not that he had not paid homage to the Spaghetti Western genre before: He already did it in Kill Bill Volume 1 and 2 a few years ago.

If you are looking for historical fact about the slavery in US Civil War, go ahead and switch to TV History Channel; if you are yearning for Quentin's throwback western feature, waste no time and join the pandemonium! Do not worry about the long running time of 2 hours 45 minutes, because you will hardly notice it, though the non linear narrative style is nowhere to be seen this time. Django Unchained tackles the subjects of slavery and racism, blends with
QT's richly quotable dialogues and ultra violence style throughout the course of the movie. Try not be too disturbed by how Quentin poke fun at racism, the stupidity of mankind and what not. To be honest, I guiltily find it mighty hilarious with the portrayal of racial bigotry. This is an incredible movie all around, matching the standard of the man himself, a vastly entertaining novelty, which is what a fine moviemaking is all about.

Like Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, The revenge theme is what Django Unchained made of. The movie sets 2 years before the American Civil War, a German dentist turned bounty hunter Dr Schulz (played by Christoph Waltz) and a freed slave Django (Jamie Foxx) team up to headhunt US government's wanted men and on the quest to find Django's missing wife (Kerry Washington). The casting is top notch as usual for QT standard, Christoph Waltz gave a very assured performance while the intensity of Jamie Foxx added dimension to the Django character. Then there is Leonardo Di Caprio as the francophile plantation owner Calvin Candie, a pure impersonation of evil. Samuel L. Jackson is Stephen the head servant, who is Calvin Candie's eyes and ears in running the plantation. His intimidating stare is enough to scare anyone pissing in their pants.

There are so many moment to be savoured such as The pre-KKK bag head scene had me laughed so hard I nearly choke myself. The "three dimples in a black man's skull theory" monologue coldly delivered by LeonardoDiCaprio about genetic inferiority. Interestingly, that scene draws parallel with the "Italians are spawned by N*gg*r " speech from True Romance (Tony Scott, 1993), scripted by none other than QT himself. The dialogues in the movies are written in a very typical Tarantino-esque style, you know, the usual long winded verbosity. The following are some typical example of the Quentin's scripted dialogues:

Dr Schulz: My good man, did you simply get carried away with your dramatic gesture, or are you pointing your weapon at me with lethal intention?

* * * * *

Calvin Candie: [about Django] He is a rambunctious sort, ain't he?

The trademark talkfest he wrote, rambling or not is debatable, even at time It may not seems colloquial. But make no mistake, the script is nothing short of the usual QT awesomeness. If Spike Lee is furious with the overusage of the N-word from QT's previous movies, he better be wearing soundproof earmuff all over Django Unchained. After all he refused to watch, or so they said.

A Spaghetti Western feature will not be complete without the music composed by the legendary Ennio Morricone. Aside from that, there are out-out-place rap tune but fit perfectly to the movie, and then there are super-cool-rarely-heard songs. In fact the soundtrack is so cool I have the soundtrack audio CD to relive its moments.

The last act of the movie, about 30 minute from the end is pure total carnage. The bloody shootout was brilliantly executed, it may not for the faint hearted due to blood soaking violence. The torso takes bullet hits, exploding blood squibs during gun fights everywhere. I always expect to see somewhere's someone's head being blown off, instead I saw someone's penis being blown apart by shotgun.

I have been tinkering on the star rating for Django Unchained. I want you to be assured that my admiration for Quentin is nothing to do with the full 5 stars out of 5. Maybe a tinge of bias, hahaha. OK, all joking aside, I would like to think this is among Quentin Tarantino's most accessible movie. In other words, it is a great introduction to non fan will most likely find this to be entertained and absolute must see for any QT's aficionado.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

A Good Day to Die Hard (John Moore, 2013)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:51:00 +0000

Bruce Willis, I first came to know him since the TV series era, Moonlighting (from year 1985 to 1989), the non stop bickering between him and Cybill Shepherd, the wonderful chemistry from the odd couple. This Moonlighting Theme Song reminds me of used to glue to the show regularly on channel TV3 on 11:30pm (or is it 12:30 midnight?). Saying that kind giving away my age. I am not that old, mind you.

The previous Die Hard movies are always about the right man at the wrong place and wrong time. The reluctant hero is always forced to take matters into his own hands in a confined location with race against the clock. Bruce Willis reprised his role as New York City police detective John McClane for the fifth time.This time, His NYPD badge means nothing when he goes to Moscow looking for his now grown up son Jack (Jai Courtney did not annoy me with his performance here), who was imprisoned for an assassination incident. The problem escalates when a high rank ex-Russia government officer executes a sinister plan to smuggle nuclear weapon (whole lots of uranium based canisters) for reason that I did not fully aware (sorry I must have blank stare moment during the scene they mentioned it). Obviously the father and son team up to stop them.

No brainer to say it is always a tough act to follow the first Die Hard, I mean this was the movie which re-invented the action genre back in late 80s. Those days, it was a timely antidote to the invulnerable action movie protagonists such as Arnold, Stallone, Van Damme, Norris who so used to blast off their enemies without making much sweat. Two decades later you still find the concept of "Die Hard on a...... (fill in the blank: train, stadium, boat, bus, plane etc). Die Hard 2 and 3 did not embarrassed their predecessor. When it comes to the forth one - Live Free or Die Hard, you start to feel hmmm..... this is really stretching the point of being a proper Die Hard movie.

Let me tell you what is wrong is AGDtDH: The plot and John McClane. I did not have the EXCITEMENT of watching a Die Hard movie. What happen to the wise cracking everyman hero that I used to know? McClane mocked the villains delivering witty lines, and oh who can forget his smirk! I dare you not to cringe at some poor dialogue, "You know what I hate about the Americans? Everything!", the carrot chewing villain scorned, the said villain with his superior have about one tenth of Hans Gruber on Flamboyant Metre scale. The same villain's SWAT-like team possess one tenth of Simon Gruber's IQ, They line up and are shot down one after one like a sack of spud. I was expecting to see the vulnerable McClane, but what I get here is him doing some superhero stunt with his son. And the indisputable proof of how much Die Hard's writing had fall from grace is the repetition of "I am on vacation", McClane quipped four times through out the movie, as if the screewriter wants to coin another immortal catchphrase from "Yippee ki yay, motherf**ker". The "I am on vacation" line is totally corny and out of place.

Bruce Willis looks bored and tired. (Read: not acts to look tired, but Bruce seems not really bother to be in McClane role). The only saving grace is the high tempo cars chase scene at near beginning of the movie, where McClane Sr hijack a Mercedes Unimog SUV in pursuit of an armoured tank like vehicle which in turn on the trail of McClane Jr. Overall It is only a half-ass effort from the movie studio to cash in the diminishing Die Hard brand, in other words, a stripped-down sequel nothing more than a poor attempt made to appeal to younger audience.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Bait (Kimble Rendall, 2012)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 26 Feb 2013 15:04:00 +0000

The idea of making a movie about killer shark munching on hapless people has been done to death, I really mean it. Here, BAIT is a colloboration of Australian/Singaporean produced movie about shark attack, and I have to admit it has quite an interesting but sort of are-you-kidding-me concept: a freak tsunami strikes a small costal town of Australia, floods a supermarket while the survivors takes shelter inside. They are trapped in it no thanks to part of building structure collapse and blocks the entrance. Just as the survivors thought the situation could not be worse, beneath the flooded water is great white shark's new hunting ground . . . . . .

For the wrong reason, the prologue scared the hell out of me. It freaked me out not because
of how scary the shark attack sequence was, but I shuddered by the sight of very shoddy CGI effect of the shark (maybe due to the fact that I was not watching in 3D version). At that moment I thought I was surely in for a dreadful "so bad it is good" movie. But, the movie turn out marginally better as it progressed.

Visually, BAIT has enough suspense and bloody moments to to satisfy killer creature movie goers. The stranded people trapped at the top of the supermarket shelves while the shark is patrolling the submerged aisle, seeking for cgance to pick them one by one. In other words, it lets movie maker to show the gory images of mutilated human body. Giving how the seemingly huge appetite shark keep coming back for human snack after devouring some, I was a bit suprise by the rather smaller sharks portrayed in the movie compare to those other movies usual godzilla size. The portrayal of shark is a combination of the old school animatronic (yay!) and CGI (duhhh....can a great white shark swim that fast?) ) mainly for underwater sequence.

So, who are those potential shark meal? sorry i mean who are the survivors? They are cookie cutter characters are straight out from a typical disaster surviving theme movie. It has a timid character, a quiet but brave one, an annoyingly hysterical one, a few criminals, a cop, cop's daughter....the list goes on and I guess you get the idea, and oh do not forget the ultimate young and good looking hero with death immunity. I also think that I saw Julian McMahon, the only one actor I recognised as one of the robber. My favourite characters are the young couple who trapped inside a car at the basement car park level as they just argue about everything despite shark is frantically trying to take a good bite on them.

BAIT does not help by its amateurish acting level all around. It is a major letdown. It does not matter if this is a low budget movie or a film student experiment movie, acting is the first and foremost the important aspect in a make or break for a movie. All in all, lower your expectation and you may like it, at least it does not has a full assault on my IQ which happens in a lot of the B-horror movies. Better to watch BAIT rather than Shark Night (David R. Ellis, 2012).

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

Taken 2 (Olivier Megaton, 2012)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 04:39:00 +0000

Previously I have gone for the original sleeper hit, as such, it is easy as pie to review a this lazily-titled sequel (come on, Taken 2? I can come out with better title, how about Taken Again? or Taken 2: Wrong Place At the Wrong Time?). The similarities are all over the place. It has almost the same behind-the-scene crews where Luc Bessons produced it and wrote it with Robert Mark Kamen; same casts (father/husband, estrangled mother/wife, teenage daugther); the action still takes place at foreign soil, this time change from Paris to the hustle and bustle streets of Istanbul; and above all the same storyline (father comes to the rescue when his family is abducted by the Albanian hit-men)

The no nonsense Liam Nesson as Bryan Mills is back to kick some sorry asses. There is nothing to be said that has not been said before, but here I am rambling: Liam is the main reason I watched this rehash. He excelled in this role just as he did in the first movie. He is still the over-protective father of his daughter, and will use deadly force to paralyze any brutal threat, though when it comes having a relationship with his family, this is the same guy struggle to get along with his family.

The movie retains the grittiness of the hand to hand combat. Jackie Chan' fighting cheoreography, this is not. However the shaky camera work coupled with quick cuts during the fist fight gave my poor eyes a hard time to see whose limbs are punching whose bodies. The minor trouble with Taken 2 is some of plots' plausibleness plunges to a lower depth compare to the predecessor. You know that the suspension of disbelief is the viewing pre-requisite, but the requirement is wearing thin by now and could well be snapped in the inevitable Taken 3 (another unimaginative title?) judging from the current rate.

Sorry to say the law of diminishing quality returns appear in this sequel. But I suppose it will not matter much, a 90 minutes fast paced, heart pounding action thriller is akin to a quick fast food meal. In the end, if you are still wondering why you need to watch the rehash of Taken Mk. 1, take this as comfort: Liam Neeson will not carry the action movie role forever as he is in his 60s now. I wish he still got the extra oomph to act in action movie as he looks more believable as a ex-CIA agent compare with Steven Seagal as ex-Navy SEAL posed as a chef.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2012)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:57:00 +0000

Christopher Nolan does not make simple movie anymore, does he? I was emotionally exhausted right from the start to finish in this captivating 2 hours and 45 minutes of viewing, I barely have time to digest the richness of its storytelling and it lingered in my mind long after experienced it.

The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR) is a fitting epic ending to the most compelling, ambitious superhero movie trilogy ever. In term of audaciousness, the closest I can think of is another DC Comics, Watchmen (Snyder, 2009), without a doubt you are looking at the pinnacle of superhero comic movie adaptation in these two. Both have equal brooding style, Watchmen has a superior narrative style because it is benefitted from a direct existing material while Nolan's Batman trilogy punches pure entertainment with accessibility to both general audience and comic geeks.

By the 3rd part of trilogy, gone are the days of the main characters' introduction, where we are straight to the engrossing pay off time.Batman's vehicle evolved from Tumbler who looks like tank to a two-wheels Batpod to The Bat that fly with ease (yes, Lucius Fox confirms that it comes in black colour). The story sets 8 years after the event of The Dark Knight where Bruce Wayne went into long hiatus. The newcomer Anne Hathaway plays the role of Catwoman. Under normal circumstances, she and Catwoman do not belongs to the same bracket, but somehow she pull it off with the seductive performance coupled with the touch of insecurity from her. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays as a closed aide to Commisioner Gordon. Meanwhile, Marion Cottillard is an important figure in Wayne Enterprise.

The main villain, Bane is played by Tom Hardy where his presence on the screen is downright menacing. He is physically tough and hulky. He may not be as intimidating as Joker, but somehow I fear for anyone who is near to him because he seems like he would snap the neck of the person standing next be it his henchmen or enemy. I really felt for Batman during one of the brutal knuckle fight with Bane. He absolutely gives Batman a painful thumping. On the grand scale, he masterminded a sinister plan for the downfall of Gotham City. He strikes the people of Gotham with fear, he actually gives the Gotham citizens some faint hope before striking it down with furious vengeance, all before the eyes of a helpless Bruce Wayne. Given the fleshed out background story, it is obvious Bane is the most complex villain in TDK trilogy.

I am pleased that we are now at the second decade of the golden age of superhero comic movie adaptation where there are plenty of choices we are spoilt of. The sky is the limit as far as CGI is concern, nowadays no matter how transcendent the comic is, the cinema medium just easily lift the concept from the comic book panels. While Joss Whedon's The Avengers is fun, loud, a kind of borderline juvenile stuff, TDKR on the other hand is a serious, realistic, brooding, gothic feel drama. It stings to say this because I am a huge follower of Joss. Let me reiterate that The Dark Knight Rises is an epitome to action-orientated movie; not just limit to superhero comic adaptation genre. Whoever wants to remake a movie about Batman after Christopher Nolan, I wish him/her best of luck.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

The Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb, 2012)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:33:00 +0000

With new reboot comes great expectation.

Amazing? More like The Immature Spider-Man to me. Wait, do not get me wrong, it is not a slander remark by any stretch of mean, I was trying to point out that it is basically a re-telling of our beloved Peter Parker's teenage life, how he cope with the death of his Uncle Ben and more importantly how he dealt with the newfound arachnoid power.

Years ago, the Sony Pictures announcement of the new Spider-Man reboot had us crying out "What? Reboot again? It was too soon for that!" In fact, it has been only 10 years since Sam Raimi's own version of Spider-Man movie, which lead to 2 more sequels completing a satisfying trilogy. Instead of continue with Part Four, Sony Pictures chose to revamp the whole franchise by starting all over again. Which bring us The Amazing Spider-Man (TAS-M) helmed by the relatively newcomer Marc Webb. He has so far brought us the indie (500) Days of Summer (2009) which I am impressed by the quirkiness of it.

I have great time in Raimi's sunny, glittering Spider-Man trilogy. Cinematically, he introduced one of the most iconic Marvel's superhero character to non-comic Spidey fan like me and the story of the web shooter too won the heart of many comic fans. My write-up here is probably has to do with a lot of comparison between Raimi's original Spider-Man and the latest instalment. This time, Instead of shooting the web from his wrist, Spider-Man invented the mechanical web shooter just like in the comic. There is no Mary Jane Watson character as Peter's love interest, replaced by Gwen Stacy which is akin to the comic timeline. We will also find out more about Peter's parents. Then, there are no appearances of Osborne members although their organization Oscorp formed the backdrop of the plot. Dr Curt Connor is the villain better known as Lizard as his alter ego. He is the leading research scientist in Oscorp on the verge of biotechnology breakthrough based on reptiles' DNA in regenerating new human tissue for amputated limb like himself. What I missed most from 2002 version is JK Simmons as the wacky chief editor of Daily Bugle.

Rhys Ifans as Dr Curt Connor AKA Lizard

Another significant difference with this latest TAS-M is the overall darker and grittier tone. I noticed Uncle Ben's demise here has somehow less impact on Peter's anguish motivation. The loss of his uncle should be the incident inspiring him to use his unique ability to fight the crime. Compare to Tobey Maguire, does Andrew Garfield look a tad to pretty to be a nerdy Peter Parker? If you look past that, his flourishing romance scene with the Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is chemistry spot on.

We are reminded on numerous occasions that the wall crawler is actually no more than a geeky Peter Parker in suit; I find it hilariously genuine when he is in full spandex suit, he still carry backpack; he received calls from Aunt May asking him to buy organic eggs, he played with his cellphone while waiting for The Lizard.... his actions evidently showing he was merely an orphaned teenager who discover his newfound superpower, Wolverine he is not. Whenever the gravity defying masked crimefighter in full swing action, the fair share of it happen during glitering night of New York City. Again, bridge is used as location to one of the action scene.

The most common argument against the reboot Amazing Spider-Man is: It does not bring anything new to the table; it is a blatant, soulless money grabber. But then after the cold reception of Spider-Man 3 (2007), the continuation of Sam Raimi's part 4 may seems like heading towards nothing short of wearing itself out. After watching the latest instalment, I felt I do not have to bash the previous version to like the current TAS-M, they are both worthy in their own way in adapting the story of web swinger from the comic. TAS-M is a refreshing approach to explore the origin of Spider-Man, and that is certainly NOT the backhanded compliment I gave.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

In Time (Andrew Niccol, 2011)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 10 Jul 2012 07:03:00 +0000

Time is money, we all know the quote. Andrew Niccol acknowledged the concept by visually paraphrase it. How about "people buy time to cheat death"?

Imagine our world in the future where Time replace Money as the currency, human's DNA is genetically engineered, allow every human born and age like normal until 25 years old, that is where you stop aging, yes you read it right, stop aging, physically remain forever at 25 years old, well if you can. The catch is, you are given only another year to live after 25 years old and you have to earn a living (more like survival). The glowing countdown timer embedded at the forearm always reminds you how much time you have to live. Meaning you must work to make sure your timer do not run down to a series of zero numbers, which is equal to an instant death.

Ghetto is the place where the hardcore poor people live and earn their living day to day, their life expectancy is often left with days if not hours. Worker wages are paid in the currency of Time, people buy a cup of coffee of 4 minutes, a bus trip for 2 hours et cetera. While the poors are constantly facing the burden of currency inflation, life, however is lavishly rich on the other side, at a place called New Greenwich where people there can live for centuries without going through menopause. "Time zones" were created to keep wealthy folks from the poors because it cost an exorbitant fee to cross the border. Our blue-collar hero Justin Timberlake gets into trouble by involving in a murder crime, he goes on a run, trespass into New Greenwich and kidnap The Powerpuff Girl, I mean Amanda Seyfried, who played the billionaire's daughter. Both of them go on the run while the Timekeeper, a law enforcer (Cillian Murphy) is on their heel.

Himself a regular writer and director, Andrew Niccol's cine world is often relate to someone who tries to overcome an established (sometimes an unfair) system, Gattaca (1997) to me, will always be the pinnacle of his career, an exquisite work of inspiring art. The dystopian setting of In Time has a lot in common with Gattaca, both are based on a thought provoking idea eventhough the lacklustre storytelling of the former did not back up the far fetch premise. It has the usual car / on foot chase and be chased action, still I find myself a tad difficult to soak up the whole mumbo jumbo issue of human can live forever as long as the timer on their forearm is ticking. Well, call me a prejudice jerk, in movies, i accept people travel faster than light, heck i love Back to The Future series to death with its time travel stuff, but I cannot give the nod to anything that is related to EVERLASTING LIFE. Hence here it is, my cold shoulder towards the on screen lovely pair that I am suppose to care.

This movie only skim off the surface, where there are many repercussion in a society where the people are not going to age a bit after hitting quater of a century. Niccol need a team of experts (read: futurists) to cook up the plausible scenarios for In Time to be based on, not with this juvenile attempt. OK, before somebody undermine my understanding in this movie, let me say i got it, I am aware of the relevant social commentary, the inequity between the rich and the poor with the crooked corporate capitalism undertone. Though I love the overall look of the movie which to me is aesthetically elegance, it has a retro feel to it, with all the budget constrain, Niccol aptly created the retrospective future background, the tech noir-ish cars and architecture. Oh how I wish In time can rival Gattaca and The Truman Show (1998) that deeply evoked my emotion towards the triumph of the human spirit.

I almost forgot to mention this: Forget the naysayer, once again it proves Justin Timberlake CAN act.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:07:00 +0000

First thing first, let's lay the fact, Prometheus is a spin-off from Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979), a loose prequel if you insist. It is set in LV-223, a different moon LV-426 in Alien and Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)); a different derelict alien spacecraft; a different Space Jockey, but here they called it Engineer, in Alien (1979), it was a much bigger size and last but certainly not least, a different efficiency of director Ridley Scott. He returned to sci-fi territory after lengthy absence from his influential haunted-house-in-space Alien.

Every time I re-watch Alien (1979), I always wonder what is all about with the fossilized creature with the elephant head, sitting eerily at a crashed cockpit spacecraft. Certainly I am not the only one who is curious about it. Well, the director Scott answered our query at last by expanding the back story of the Space Jockey in moon LV-426. Prometheus is set decades before the incident where Ripley and crews first discovered the fossilized spacecraft pilot. A deep space expedition funded by Weyland Corporation (later as Weyland-Yutani Corp in Alien movie series) set out looking for answers of who created human in the beginning and what is our purpose on earth. Darwinism, this is not.

An Alien movie will not be without a strong female protagonist, Noomi Rapace fits the bill as one of the archeologist in expedition. Sadly, she is no Ellen Ripley, period. Even more so for an Alien movie will not be without a human-like android on board. As usual the one thing we need to find out is whose side he is allied to. Michael Fassbender really excelled to bring his android character to, should I say, to "life"? He is almost a child-like inquisitive machine, more human than another human on board, a calculative, icy Weyland Corporation representative played by Charlize Theron.

Prometheus belongs to that type of flick which does not offer answers in many questions it poses. The plot holds back way too much without resolving many mysteries it put forth, perhaps it want to saves for subsequent sequels until it tie nicely to the original Alien movie, I do not know. But one thing I am sure is, I am not keen on watching something that requires me to make huge assumption about a lot of things, and that, is a MAJOR problem. Great movies sometimes leave space for viewers to interprete themself and I have no qualm accepting a little notion called narrative ambiguity. To make things worse as the plot thicken, the movie suffers from a absurd script to have narration move onward, the logic stretches beyond salvage, if not, how do you explain a pivotal moment in this movie where immediately after a Ceasarean section was performed, the character went up and running as if the wound is an insect bite?

If I knew Ridley Scott and co have made such a banal attempt of elaborating the back story of Space Jockey, I would rather have it remain mysterious fossilized. Basically, the sky is the limit for them to kickstart a new direction yet still set within the same Alien to Alien Resurrection (Jeunet, 1997) universe that we all familiar with. No Egg, no Facehugger, no Xenomorph, No Alien Queen, I am OK with none of that, perhaps some minor references to the Alien series here and there will be delightful for the buffs. What is in my mind now is, If the tagline of Weyland Corporation is "Building Better Worlds", perhaps Prometheus means "posing more questions" to us.

X-Men: First Class (Matthew Vaughn, 2011)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:08:00 +0000

For those who debate on whether the latest turnout from Marvel's Mutant is a reboot or prequel, will whole heartedly agree that it need to be better than the last dismal X-Men Origins: Wolverine (Hood, 2009). In fact the feral mutant feature tarnished the X-Men movie brand so badly, it needed Logan's superhuman healing ability to revive the X-Men franchise.

For that noble reason, we go back to the 1940s and 60s, where we find out more about the two pivotal mutants. Before the principal of X-Men known as Professor X, he was Charles Xavier; before Magneto becomes the magnetic field controller, he was Erik Lehnsherr. First Class tells the story of the early years of two most influential mutants, how the young Charles met the blue shape shifting Raven, who became his few and far between best friend; meanwhile somewhere in German concentration camp, Erik was one of million victims of Nazi's atrocious regime.

Erik Lehnsherr AKA Magneto

20 years later, follow by years of Nazi's imprisonment, the vengeful Erik search and trackdown his all-powerful evil guardian Sebastian Shaw (played by the evergreen Kevin Bacon), Kevin played the new villainous Sebastian, the leader of another mutant group, known in the comic as Hellfire Club. Kevin Costner starred in Thirteen Days (Donaldson, 2000) may have presented a more historical accurate version of the Cuban Missile Crisis, First Class certainly re-creates the more intriguing alternate history by interlacing the involvement of the X-Men in the notorious Cuban Missile Crisis. The war between Homo Sapiens and Homo Superiors is always been the backbone of X-Men movies, the leaders of two mutant groups, who fight for the same course. i.e. to protect their own kind against the human's onslaught and discrimination. The subtext of skepticism in self-acceptance is even more noticeable in the subplot of Mystique and Beast.

Charles Xavier AKA Professor X

Here in First Class, we witness the first of many to come encounters between Charles and Erik, mind you, it is not all sparks and flares when two of them met, by contrary, they share some of the tear jerking moments such as where Charles delves into the fond childhood memory of Erik in order to amplify his metal control ability. The truth is, there are more than enough material to make a feature length movie about Erik and Charles, let alone the inclusion of Sebastian Shaw and the first ever intake for Xavier's School for Gifted Youngster, hence bring us the movie title, X-Men: First Class. Rising stardom actors James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender wear the Cerebro device with ease as they handle their roles as the young Charles and Erik convincingly. Their hands are not tied by the need to impersonate the older counterpart characters in the movie sequel. However, rest assure that you will be able to relate them to Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen as you re-visit the sequels.

Take my review with a pinch of salt if you only want to hear from a diehard comic X-Men fan, be that as it may, I do not have a faint idea whether this movie is faithful to the comic. All I knew is, in some aspect, it is slightly contradicted timeline in previous X-Men movies, does it matter to me? No, when I witness the cameo which is many times funnier than Stan Lee The Marvel Comic God. Does it upset me when they contradicting the age of Moira MacTaggert as in X-Men 3? I forgot about it when I look at the amazing bar scene where Erik tracked down the Nazi "pig farmer" and "tailor", a heart pounding built up suspense before one of them makes the first move.

Emma Frost and Sebastian Shaw

What makes First Class so special is, there is a collective of indie aura, a seductive 1960s vibe attach to it, suspiciously due to the teaming of director, the Brit Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman the co-writer. It reminds me of Vaughn's Kick-Ass (2010), another comic book adaptation movie whom leaps out of the big studio artistic confinement. It does not only rely on money shot climatic battle, the way Charles and Erik compliment other so well, I will watch it even without the the sub-plots of young mutants' recruitment and Sebastian Shaw orchestrating the nuclear war.

Unlike most superhero comic movies, It belongs to the same Superhero comic movie hall of fame, along side with Christopher Nolan's two Batman movies and Bryan Singer's double X-men. Yes, you heard me there, it is THAT inspiring! Hey, all the while I thought in a X-Men movie universe, it is a cardinal sin without Wolverine playing the main lead, well, I was gladly wrong. What happen next with this exciting beginning, there are lots of potential to be fulfilled, uncharted territory can be explored. Let us celebrate the re-born of the franchise, roll on First Class: Graduation Year.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

The Green Hornet (Michel Gondry, 2011)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 06:42:00 +0000

Miscast, irritating, tepid are the unkind words that spring to my mind for one of the main actor in the movie. No, it is not Christoph Waltz, although it fair to say he is regrettably wasted his talent here as the arch villain. We knew what he is capable of, say, a proper direction comes from the meticulous Tarantino. If the opening of Inglourious Basterds (Tarantino, 2009) shows Christoph in deadly threat of table talking, then here, the movie opens with the lame introductory of him (as the chief underworld Russian mobster) threatening his victim. Not even an engulfing flame from a blast explosion shows as much intimidation.

No, neither those unkind words is directed at Jay Chou, an established singer/actor superstar in the Far East. He fills the big shoes' role as Green Hornet's sidekick Kato. Following the footsteps of the late legend Bruce Lee who previously donned the same martial art expert character. Although he may at times murmuring his english lines when (a) he is not at each other's throat with his partner-in-crime, or (b) busy cover his P-I-C's ass during crimefighting. Nevertheless this nerdy looking Jay unknowingly exceeded my expectation. Kato is Green Hornet's late father's trusted mechanic and servant, who become the worthier half of the vigilante costumed duo. The brainy Kato is also an inventor to some very cool gadget, just look at the heavily armed Chrysler Imperial car, the Black Beauty.

Those stinging words at the beginning of this write up: miscast, irritating, tepid are aim at Seth Rogen, the playboy who inherited the newspaper publishing syndicate from his murdered father, the egotistical loser who bullies Kato, the spoilt brat who is the other "expendable" half of the costumed crimefighters, Throughout the movie until the end, the Green Hornet character has no redeeming features.

Cameron Diaz has aged rather...hmmm... to put in nicely.....indelicately. she looks much older than I thought. Her golden years of hot chick role is inevitably behind her now. Here in the movie they even make fun of her old age. The role she is playing as the love interest will be as fine as it was other newbie actress. By the way, what is Michel Gondry doing here? He is clearly having a Fish-Out-of-Water Syndrome. This big budget superhero action vehicle is not exactly the type of the director famed for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004). Is he in those deal with the movie studio where Michel need to helms The Green Hornet in return of they will fund his next artistic flick (artistic, read: lower audience turnout). Apart from the occasional trademark visual flair, this is all but a bland effort. For Michel Gondry, the Oscar co-winner of Best Original Screenplay, I hope it is not the case of how the mighty have fallen.

Well, I have to admit that as part of the contemporary audience, I am a novice for any existing materials of The Green Hornet which dated as far back as half a century ago, but I cannot get over with the notion of such childlike hero, Tell me the original Green Hornet is nothing resemble to it. What is seemingly a money making movie franchise has been washed down the drain when Seth Rogen carried his usual slapstick antic from his previous movies. Even the idea of making the spin-off movie of Kato alone is a better choice! The Green Hornet afficionado should not be too upset by the usage of bullet time technique during Kato kicking goon's ass, because It is understandable that Jay's Kato does not fight with the deftness of Bruce Lee, after all it is the highlight of otherwise an uneventful outing for the costumed crimefighters.Kato's Bullet-time-vision , the retro Black Beauty, weaponary Gas Gun barely save this from being in the same league as Howard the Duck (Huyck, 1986). It got so much potential, it could have been an awesome twosome masked heroes feature, but ultimately paying the price of having a child-like uninteresting actor in the lead role. To sums up my thought for the Green Hornet character, I share what John Mills from Se7en (Fincher, 1995) said: "You're no messiah, you're the movie of the week, a f**cking T-shirt, at best."

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = Excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? Only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

The Wrestler (Darren Aronofsky, 2008)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 18:05:00 +0000

I remember I used to watch the now defunct WWF's wrestling matches on tube sometimes, thinking how cool it was, those pro wrestlers in the ring body-slam each other, wondered why the umpires were scared of them, pushed to the ground by them without getting any punishment. Until I was told all of that were staged, it is an act, no different than the live action of actors perform on art theatre's stage. Despite knowing the truth, I never dismiss wrestling just because it is simulated. To me, the wrestlers are something like a cross between a stuntman and actor, a sportsman-figure who choreograph the moves, minimize the risk of injury from the stunts they pull during a match.

Without taking into account of the short movies Darren Aronofsky has made, The Wrestler is his 4th directorial feature. Each of those are distinctive to each other, almost emphatically avoids comparison. Shot in grainy images, this low budget work focus on Randy, an aging, faded wrestling star struggle to cope with his life outside the wrestling ring. The movie begins with beautiful montage, showing the promotional event posters, ticket stubs, newpaper cutting, tag along with live commentator sound clips, all these illustrate the glory Randy had 20 years ago.

The fame he had did not pave way for ample life. Now Randy lives in a rented deteriorate caravan, still he barely afford to pay the rent for it. He work part timely at a supermarket, supervised by a jerk manager who makes everything hard to Randy every chance he has. While he befriended a stripteaser (Marisa Tomei), she is adamant not to allow their relationship to go beyond customer/worker boundary. All the setbacks above are incomparable to the loves of his life: Wrestling and his estranged daughter.

Akin to Robert Downey Jr, it is good to see the B-movie starrer Mickey Rourke back into the movie limelight again after a series of troubled private life. Here he truly put up a gritty, tour de force performance playing a sympathetic washed up pro-wrestler. Sorry, scratch that, he did not ACT in it, MICKEY ROURKE IS RANDY "THE RAM" ROBINSON, he lives and breathes through the character. He did not have to try hard because of the blatant juxtapose between Randy the wrestler and the real Mickey the actor. One even can draw parallel situation with Cassidy the stripper, both are now in the twilight of their respective career, but still desperately clinging on whatever they are best at. The admirable Marisa Tomei put up a brave performance as stripper in some nude scenes.

There are some realistic but not excessive wrestling violence shown: the act of blading, the sadistic using of staple gun, barb wire wrapped crutch, glass panel to depict the dark side of the sport. Against his doctor's advice, Randy knows very well with his heart conditon he is risking his life if he continue to do what he does best. Without a shred of doubt he would rather die in the ring with the cheering audience rather than dying without trying. He told Cassidy the only place he gets hurt is "out there" @ the real world. Wrestling is the blood in his veins, he breathes, live with the sport.

There are moments where camera angle were shot from the back of Randy's big shoulder frame, it's like we are viewing the world through Randy. The first time he prepares to work at the deli counter, he is so pump up, the tracking shot follows from behind Randy walking from the supermarket back rooms towards deli counter, made him looks like he is walking out from dressing room to the arena ready to rumble in the ring. Even the sounds of roaring audience are heard in the background. I guess this is what Randy must felt at that time, he detested working at the supermarket yet he motivated himself to go for it. In a way, it reminds me of myself sometimes. *chuckle*

The end comes full circle when Randy goes back what he does best: Donning his signature move - Ram Jam accompany by the noise of cheering and booing from the audience. The speech he gave to the rowdy audience at the end is as heartbreaking as you can get. Tell me that you do not move to tears when the movie faded to black with Bruce Springsteen's title track plays. To cite The Wrestler as a wrestling movie is like saying Stallone's Rocky is a boxing movie. Aronofsky's tale of a washed up wrestler is my generation's Raging Bull (Scorsese, 1980).

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Devil (John Erick Dowdle, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:15:00 +0000

It used to be a surefire hit for movie to be associated with the distinctive label of M. Night Shayamalan. He directed, wrote, produced and sometimes acted as cameo in some of the most original modern days' cinematic achievement. However his fall from grace began after some back to back turkeys of Lady in The Water (2006), The Happening (2008) and the TV series adaptation of The Last Airbender (2010). Now I think he had realized that he should let his trusted associates to bring his idea to the screen. The story he provided (he did not pen the script) will be the first of 3, from a planned supernatural thriller anthology called The Night Chronicles. Still, Shyamalan's familiar modus is evidently shown here, it was set in his own soil Philadelphia; his long time collaboration, Tak Fujimoto is the director of photography; plus the holy moly plot twist elements are back!

The movie begins with a voiceover telling us about how the devil roams the earth teasing and torturing sinned people before taking their souls to eternity hell. The opening credits shows an upside down panning view of gloomy Philly skyscraper. At one of the office high rise, five strangers entered that office tower riding a same elevator, it was then struck by a sudden malfunction midway, and soon follows by series of bizarre, unexplained events, all happened in the confined metal box. A detective, still mourning at the loss of his family in a hit and run road accident, was called to calm the situation and try to get them out before the conflict between them turns real ugly. Apparently, one of the five strangers in that elevator is not what "it" appear to be......

My first impression for Devil is, it is an extended The Twilight Zone episode spanning 70-ish minutes. Huge chunk of the movie take place in the elevator, interweave with real time plot happen elsewhere. The voiceover in the movie works like a charm guide, at times warns the audience the imminent dangers and also devilishly manipulate our anticipation. This bone chilling Devil reminds us the tell-all sign to look for from a great scary movie is, because it never rely on cheap sudden jolting scare, nor it depends on full-blown gore and blood.

Everytime the lights in the elevator inexplicable went off, the screen goes total black, it only accompanied by the eerie whirling sound effect heighten by the surround cinema speakers. You will only able to see the aftermath of the carnage, not during the invisible force at work. Nevermind, the tension of waiting for the next trainwreck is enough to agonize you. Forget about the subliminal shots of the devil, the script also offers further religious undertone such as the belief of everything happens for a reason, or the hypothetical statement of "If you believe in god, then you will have to believe in the devil". As for the big plot twist mentioned above, I will not reveal it here, a minor hint I can give is, just think of it as a reversal of retribution to foil someone's coup de grâce.

This movie will not scare the daylight out of people who take elevator as opposed to say, that famous shark movie has inflicted on the beachgoers' mind with permanent scar. Though, claustrophobic individual should avoid it at all cost. I was among the skeptics who scoffed at the "M. Night Shyamalan Presents:" on top of a movie title before this movie. Now with less of his involvement in this horror chiller, my cynicism against him evaporates until he bring on the next chapter of The Night Chronicles.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre

4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended

5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

The Expendables (Sylvester Stallone, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Sun, 22 Aug 2010 09:58:00 +0000

From the perspective of 80s action movie buff, The Expendables is the most anticipated blow-them-up vehicle in recent times; a seemingly ultimate action movie to end all action movies. It is a truly throwback to the 80s action movies. The plot focuses on a group of experienced mercenaries who called themselves The Expendables. They were hired to overthrow a dictator, who rules over a small South American island. As a pet project of the veteran Sylvester Stallone, he co-wrote and directed it. He also starred as one of the Expendables crew alongside with other action movie stars, Dolph Lundgren, Jet Lee, Jason Statham, ex-football player Terry Crew, real life martial artist Randy Couture (too bad Jean-Claude Van Damme and Steve Seagal passed on this project). Joining the line up is the wrestling star Steve "Stone Cold" Austin and the B-movie regular Eric Roberts as the villains.

Ironically, one of the highlight and also my favourite scene is not from any cool battle scene. It is actually where the former bosses of Planet Hollywood, Sly, Willis and Arnie (the latter two in cameo appearances) in a uproarious church scene, their tongue-in-cheek exchange have me chuckled. The recent career-revived Mickey Rourke also appeared as an ex-Expendables but he never get to hurt anyone onscreen unless you consider penetration of stallone’s skin using a tattoo needle as such. I also love the reconnaissance mission where Statham and Stallone used their bomber to take out whole crew at the dock. Oh yeah who can forget the over the top violence where torso being blasted into two halves by Terry Crews's AA-12 auto shotgun.

The recent TV series adaptation of The A-Team (Carnahan, 2010) brings back the nostalgic fun without too dumb. Frankly, I expect more or less here in The Expendables. I did not hope for any kind of Shakespearean character complexity, heck I would be satisfied if I was served with half cooked script. Instead I was treated with this yawning bore fest. I may not be a hardcore 80s action movie aficionado, but I am sure the 80s was not as dumb as this movie depicted. In spite of all the loud explosions, car chasing, fist fighting, the in-your-face gore-nography, I felt restlessly bored. Towards the so-called climax of the movie, I can't wait for Stallone, Statham et al to save the girl, defeat the dictator's army and ride off into sunset with the mannish choppers.

For all the huge funding invested on the movie, It sure look and smell like a very B-grade-feel movie, I wonder Sly did it deliberately as homage. For example you won't be seeing a more stereotyped villain characters as Eric Roberts as the rogue ex-CIA agent and puppet dictator played by David Zayas. What The Expendables managed to do is turn up the volume, heat up the fights, blow up the body count and invite the movie critics to screw themselves. You know what, If not because of the action star-studded casting, this schlocky actioner would be a direct-to-DVD material.

Michael Bay, come back please, all is forgiven.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Salt (Phillip Noyce, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Wed, 04 Aug 2010 16:51:00 +0000

As they said, art imitates life; the recent news about the capture of Russian spy - Anna Chapman and her comrades in

United States

eerily echoes the Angelina Jolie starring spy thriller Salt. It was Tom Cruise who is supposed to play the lead title at one time but dropped out because it would be too similar to his well known special agent character Ethan Hunt of Mission: Impossible franchise. The script was subsequently altered for Salt to undergo gender change.

Talk about Mrs Pitt, until this movie, I have never really notice what a beauty this lady is, The sultry-eyed, bee stung-lipped, with a killer figure; she look absolutely stunning on the big screen. Her portrayal in this movie allows her to transform from a blonde to fringe brunette to short hair, she even look great in disguising as a man! Angelina Jolie is a bona fide female action stars, step aside Milla Jovovich who is merely a rag doll in the cartoonish Resident Evil movie series. Jolie already has a few action flicks under her belt, she starred in Wanted (Bekmambetov, 2008), Mr. and Mrs. Smith (Liman, 2005) and she also played as Lara Croft character in the two movies based on the video games adaptation.

Who is Salt? That is the tagline flash across the teaser movie poster with Angelina's face. Bundle with the curious trailers, the movie marketing campaign would love to make sure the gullibility in us will search for the answer. From the opening, Salt is rescued from the detention of

North Korea

. A few years later and happily married to a mild-mannered arachnologist (scientist who study spiders), she seems to work for an oil & gas company. Below the horizon she is a CIA agent, more like an office desk job rather than a field agent. One fine day, a self-claimed Russian spy walks into CIA Centre and declares his defection to

government. He also goes as far as claiming there will be a Russian spy by the name of Evelyn Salt, who will attempt to kill the visiting

Russia

president soon and kickstart the "Day X", an operation cultivated by the former Soviet Union's KGB officer to overthrow

government.

Before the accusation can be confirmed, all hell breaks loose as the suspected Salt escapes without attempt to clear her name. And thus ensure the exciting on-the-foot and car chases. Hot on her heels are Liev Schreiber as Salt's superior and Chiwetel Ejiofor as another secret government agent. Liev is skeptical about the whole scheme but Chiwetel is adamant to hunt her down. Audience rides the wave with Salt who shows her cat-like reflex by walking and hugging the building ledges and jumping from a moving truck to another one on a highway. By the way, she also do-a-MacGyver by making a bazooka out of office tool.

Although I enjoy a resourceful Evelyn Salt outwits and outmuscles her pursuers, it is quite annoying to see Salt manage to break free every single time after being detained. I think either one should be fired from the job, the careless persons who held Salt under custody, or the movie screenwriter, take your pick.

Why is Salt running from everyone as if she is guilty as charged? Is she really a highly trained Russian spy planted as a mole in CIA? I am sure you will be keen to look for the answers as there will be enough plot twists waiting for you until the end, perhaps spill over to potential sequel. The quest of finding Salt's true identity tag along with heart pounding action sequences made me forego certain plot absurdity. As the retrospective Cold War era reminds us, the sizzling hot Jolie provides the extra spice to Salt.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:44:00 +0000

If I told you half of the 2.5 hours duration of Inception take place in somebody's dreams and its content is far from mumbo jumbo, would you believe me? Well, this movie is what you would expect to see if David Lynch remakes Ocean's Eleven. Instead of Danny Ocean and gang planning a heist, Leo DiCaprio and his assembled team will do it inside a dream, where the minds at its most relax condition. They knew the dreamer's secret, they dig deep, they track it and found it, easy.

Here is the real deal: Leonardo DiCaprio is Dom Cobb, a thief who will not be convicted under any existing law, how would you sentence a thief who uses a Dream Device sneak in people's dream stealing valuable information? The much sought-after Cobb is often hired business corporation to enter; thus sharing the same dream world of the targeted dreamer, to "extract" the info worth billion of dollars from the mind of the his clientele's competitor.

A powerful businessman Saito; played by Ken Watanabe, offer Cobb a latest assignment. If succeed, will grant him to return to his children (he was forced to exile from the country after being accused of a murder). This time, instead of extracting someone's secret from the unconscious mind, the unfeasible mission and "last job" required Cobb to "incept" an idea deep into the mind of Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), a soon-to-be-the-heir of a powerful business empire. An idea planted deep enough into Fischer's mind that will fool him it was his own willingness not to continue his dad's footsteps.

The final act of Inception showcases the labyrinth of surrealistic dreams. It is essentially a heist movie where Cobb and his assembled team made up of team members with specific task. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is Cobb's long time collaborator; Ellen Page is the talented dreamscape architect who designs layers of dream; Tom Hardy is a skilled impostor; Dileep Rao plays a chemist who creates potent sedatives to allow fellow dreamers execute their task.

I was reluctant to give a full mark to British born director/writer Christopher Nolan's latest enigmatic effort. Despite the awesomeness mind blowing script, most of the characters lack the kick of emotional depth, other than Cobb, whose untangled relationship with his wife, Mal (Marion Cotillard) and his kids evoke our sentiment. But then are we suppose to root for Saito, Leo et al? Or Fischer is the real victim here?

I believe a single viewing for most of core audience will not sufficed to absorb the multi layered plot. This is a movie you need to be watch at least once to be fully grasped. By the end of your first viewing, you will keep thinking about it, it is like you are infected with some kind of virus, the cure will be you try to piece together the jigsaw puzzle. It is very likely you will be going back for a second viewing to tie up any loose end. By that time, if not before, the great word-of-mouth is already spreading like a virus to the people around you. And there you have it; Nolan successfully planted the most resilient virus to the audience's mind, also known as INCEPTION.

Be ready to put on a thinking cap for a brainy storyline involving dream within a dream within a dream within a dream, no, I am not The Shining (Kubrick, 1980)'s Jack Torrance typing those words repeatedly. I want to emphasize that Inception deserved your full attention for its pinpoint accuracy of details and timing of the plot. Ignore my advice, you will wish the handy Plot Twisting FAQ sheets are ready to serve you. Inception is an a-maze-ing reward for the movie intellectual, even after umpteen viewings, it challenge our mental capacity, proving that a big budget blockbuster can be entertain at the same time without underestimating the audience's intelligence.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Predators (Nimród Antal, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 08:32:00 +0000

With the back-to-back box office failures of two Alien(s) vs Predator movies, it is time for the movie producers to go back to the drawing board, surely the main agenda in their brainstorming sessions is how to revive the ailing scifi/horror franchises. While Ridley Scott is helming Alien prequel soon, Predator series gets another sequel treatment, mooted by Robert Rodriguez (of Mexico Trilogy and Spy Kids Trilogy) who wrote the early draft in the 1990s. Predators is a follow-up to Arnold Schwarzenegger's Predator (McTiernan, 1987) and Predator 2 (Hopkins, 1990) with a total disregards to the AvP series storyline.

This movie opens with a group of people parachuted to a rainforest look-alike in another planet. They had no idea how they got to that place and neither they know each other. Later we will find out they were chosen from military, triad, druglord, convicted mass murderer, doctor background. The similarity between them was, they were all capable of ending another human life like swatting a fly. Their weapons were still attached with them but what they did not know is, they are right in a game hunting preserve. Stalked by the invisible cloaking, mandibles face, dreadlocks alien hunters, the predators observed them, studied their behaviour pattern and hunted them down as trophies.
The casting of Adrien Brody as the lead role is a brave decision by the moviemaker, not a typical action movie star, but he pull it off with some solid performance. Alice Braga provides the only female character, while Rodriguez's regular, tough guy Danny Trejo is a member of Mexican drug cartel. Lawrence Fishburne made a surprise cameo here but he looks like someone who forgets to renew his gym membership rather than trying to survive in an alien planet.
What makes the Governor Arnold-starred original version a breakout hit was, it was a fun testosterone-filled, a typical action flick made in the 80s. I still remember being terrified by the invisible force and wonder how the commandos are going to defeat the fearsome creature. Now, we already knew the predator is an alien hunter species, extremely difficult to be killed, abide by the code of honour, equipped with advanced weaponary, hunting human as trophies. Despite the introduction of a new powerful Predator species in this movie, this supposedly sequel does not expand the universe of the creature, unlike the xenomorph in sequel Aliens (Cameron, 1986).
To pay homage to the original movie is one thing, but the similarity between them is too much for my liking. For example the battle between Adrien Brody's character with the predator is a re-construction blueprint from Arnold vs the creature at the final battle. Then there is this sequence where the Yakuza gangster stay back and use his katana to go mano-a-mano with the predator while his friends break away, reminds me of the Native American bloke near the end of Predator 1, though we only heard his scream as he met his demise. I maybe picky, but how about the resemblance of the scene where mini-gun at full blasting only to find missing its target?
The movie producers from Troublemaker Studio must be expecting a pat on their head from the Predator series fans, thinking: "Hey look, no remake but a brand new predator movie!" I have to say sorry, Robert Rodriguez, it is close but clearly no sight of cigar. You should know the sequel should not take away the terror and intensity out of the repackage product.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:16:00 +0000

Can you recall a movie with "3" in the title being stand up honourably along side, or even better than the precedence? I enjoy Indy and his dad's adventures in The Last Crusade (Spielberg, 1988) vastly, or the sci-fi/western theme in the underrated Back to the Future Part III (Zemeckis, 1990), the often misunderstood Alien 3 (Fincher, 1992), not forgetting the stick-out-like-a-scary-bladed-glove of Nightmare on Elm Street part 3: The Dream Warrior (Russell, 1987). However The Return of The King (Jackson, 2003) does not count as I always think The Lord of the Rings Trilogy are one huge movie split into three parts.

I was there on the big screen showing the first of Toy Story (Lasseter, 1995), outlines the rivalry tension between the leader of Andy's toys, Woody the Cowboy and the new kid on the block, Buzz Lightyears. At that time, apart from marvelling at the Pixar's avantgarde non hand-drawn animation, I was immensely delighted by the heart-warming storytelling with witty scripts, and there are plenty of jokes aiming at audience of all ages to become a true success. The sequel of it, Toy Story 2 (Lasseter, Brannon, Unkrich; 1999) bring out the spirit of carpe diem and hinting on the theme of all great things (means being together) will come to an end.

So now here comes the long awaited final hurrah of Woody and the gang. Andy is a grown up teenager now, who is leaving his home for college life soon. While he is packing, he stumble on his abandoned toys and decided to put away in the attic. Due to a mishap, Woody and the gang end up at Sunnyside Daycare, where they are warmly greeted by the toy leader, Lotso the hugging bear with new toy friends. Except Woody, all the ex Andy's toys like Buzz, Jessie, Slinky Dog, Mr and Mrs Potato Head, Hamm, Rex are convinced that they will forever adored by the kids in the daycare centre, will Woody be able to persuade them otherwise? Even if they manage to go back to Andy, there is nothing they can do to stop Andy from reaching adulthood; and things will never be the same again because Andy has outgrown his toys, no longer cuddle on his toys anymore, has he? Is he?

Toy Story 3 introduced some new toy characters such as the metrosexual but campy Ken (yes, that Mattel's doll adored by billions of little girls worldwide), as love interest for Barbie. Lotso the hugging bear with a tragic past, the scary cymbal-banging monkey. Not forgetting a cute little girl, Bonnie who is Andy’s neighbour. By the end of the emotional, bittersweet trilogy finale, the young audience will wonder why their older counterparts are shedding a tear or two. What they do not know is a lot of us have been going through phases of life: childhood, adolescence, adulthood, parenthood…. We always understand the good notion of change, yet dreaded when it was time to let go. Just like Andy’s mum seeing his boy going to college. Or Andy’s reluctant parting with his toys that also correlatively gesture the end of his childhood.

"No amount of technique can fix a bad story", is always the motto of Pixar Animation Studio. That is why once again, they have done it, even though they raised the bar so high, and you wonder whether the latest installment will keep up to the standard. Rest assure it is a monumental achievement by any standard, even for a pedigree in the name of Pixar. My only complain comes from Woody's repetitive reminders to his fellow toys to pledge their loyalty to their human owner. Other than that, Toy Story 3 is a fitting conclusion to a great trilogy. If you wonder how do plastic playthings or cuddly toys presented in a computer generated animation could generate so much compassion, then look no further than Pixar distinctive label, and be awed at its underlying richness of storytelling.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

A Nightmare on Elm Street (Samuel Bayer, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Wed, 26 May 2010 16:03:00 +0000

Another day, another remake...... This time, the Pizzaface is back to haunt our dream. I was silly to think that I have seen the last of him after the pointless Freddy vs. Jason (Yu, 2003). With the latest Platinum Dunes production, one may ask, does this 80s horror movie icon need a remake treatment? To pay homage to the original? I scoff every time some director/producer et al said that. If that is the reason, can we as moviegoers watch your so called "product of tribute" for free? If they say they want to re-boot the original ANOES because it looks dated and campy, then I would be understandably agree with it (though not condone it), provided that there are rooms of improvement in the original and at the same time some creativity must be injected to the new movie. I want a brilliant Dawn of the Dead (Snyder, 2004) kind of remake rather than Gus Van Sant re-doing Hitchcock's Psycho almost shot by shot. Awful it is not, unnecessary it is.

Robert Englund is done reprising Freddy Kruger character, passing the baton to Jackie Earle Haley of Watchmen's Rorschach. I need to keep remind myself that Robert Englund is not playing Freddy, Robert Englund is not playing Freddy...... His creepy performance is what I have expected, with those familiar snarling voice, wicked look, I am most pleased that he never overdid it and thank god Freddy did not turn into a one line joke comedian like original sequels did.

The storyline is almost the same as the original: A group of teenagers were stalked in their dreams by a disfigured hat wearing man called Freddy Kruger. One by one they are killed by Freddy in their dreams, what happen during their nightmares reflected in real life, including death. The survivors must find out what link them with the boogeyman before running out of time. This remake is basically identical to the original, it offers nothing new to the series. Even as a pre-requisite element of slasher movie, the death scenes are not inventive enough. it is a polished version with the same plotline except some minor tweaking on the background of Freddy Kruger.

Any original ANOES fan hopes this remake is going to re-invent and re-kickstart the whole franchise again will be kicking themselves for paying to see this insipid and lack of creativity effort. If you are a newcomer to Freddy's nightmare, you will discover the fine demarcation line in between reality and dream provides a convenient template to shape the suspenseful, scary atmosphere. It is a shame that regular visitors to Elm Street like me will find the 2010 version nothing more than a blatant attempt to milk some dough from new audience.

All together now: One, two, remake is coming for you..... three, four, we have seen it all before......

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 04 May 2010 01:21:00 +0000

Year 2008 is the year where 2 comic adaptation superhero movies dethroned X-Men 2 (Singer, 2003) as my favourites. One of them is the sequel to the reboot DC Comics Batman series, The Dark Knight (Nolan), the critical acclaimed and arguably the greatest superhero movie ever made to date. On the other hand, the lesser known Marvel Comics' Iron Man burst onto movie screens for the first time and won the heart even the most cynical fan. I, for one, from knowing nothing about Tony Stark, to collecting the metal armoured hero's merchandize products, I also delved into the comic's timeline history from other reading material, that is how the movie does to me. Also I think I am the minority who laud Iron Man over The Dark Knight. Neither the fact IM has a less epic feel (compare to TDK) does not diminish its status, nor a less threatening villain reduces my love for the movie.

So now Round 2, the often cited as the difficult middle part of any trilogy. Prior to watch Iron Man 2, I am anxious, I know it WILL NOT surpass the 1st movie's awesomeness, deep down in my heart I hope it will not embarrass and destroy the 1st movie legacy, that is how I lower my expectation. Like any 1st sequel bridging the trilogy, the protagonist always deal with bigger issues. Since Tony Stark revealed the real man behind the mask to the world, everyone wants a piece of the arc reactor powered armour suit. The pressure from US government, his rival business entrepreneur, Justin Hammer (played by Sam Rockwell) to its own gain, try to emulate the technology that help Tony to preserve the peace. That was not the only problem Tony is facing: the arc reactor planted in his chest plate that keep his heart beating ever since the near fatal injury, is slowly poison his body. Failure to find an alternative component affects him mentally as well.

Meanwhile, the romantic tension between Tony and his personal assistant, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) continues. But sadly the ever present flirtation is best seen during the original movie. Remember in the past James Rhodes said to himself that he will wear the suit next time? Well, this is the time, he is the War Machine teaming up with Iron Man. Don Cheadle played the role of Rhodey this time, replacing Terrence Howard due to alleged contract dispute. I prefer Terrence's portrayal of Rhodey. He had a great chemistry with Robert Downey Jr. He can shows a straight face with doses of playfulness underneath. I am delighted by Mickey Rourke's performance as the villain, the development of the character, Ivan Vanko draws a parallel similarity to Tony Stark, but with opposite direction. They both have brilliant minded father, and inherited their knowledge. Only the contrast upbringing makes the difference.

Iron Man 2 did not improved from the 1st movie, I guess the director, Jon Favreau did not try to up the ante, I mean, ask yourself, how do you surpass the 5 stars rated Iron Man 1? You can't, *gasp* you can only stick with the Unofficial Rule of 2nd Part in a Trilogy as follows:

1) Bigger production budget
2) Larger casts

3) Bigger explosion (applicable, if any)
4) Expanding plotline
5) Darker tone
6) Main character faces bigger issues

Compare to its precedent, Iron Man 2 has less action, more talky scenes, I am all for that, but the middle act is sluggish, with direction-less feel to it. Too bad the drunken brawl scene was done comically, stick out like a sore thumb. The final battle is yet another machine vs machine, the only difference is the plural of it. Give me a more "organic" villiain in the next installment OK?

Like it or not, while we are waiting for final part of the Iron Man trilogy, you do not need a comic book geek to tell you that the appearance of Nick Fury, Agent Coulsen, the teaser of Captain America's Shield and Thor's Hammer are all part of the bigger Marvel Comics' universe. Plus the coming up full length features of Captain America and Thor, all these are and will be paving the path to the colossal The Avengers movie. By the way, can anyone tell me where was Stan Lee's cameo this time? Or do not tell me *another gasp* he did not make any appearance?

You may notice my comment for Iron Man 2 so far is less enthusiastic, yes i am slightly letdown by the latest outing, save for only the man himself, Robert Downey Jr. who once again shines as the womaniser billionaire, a heart of gold genius. His flamboyant body language, often carry a smirk on the face and never feel the need to hide his alter ego side. It may sound cliché, but Robert Downey Jr. is born to play high-handed Stark Industries CEO, he is the one who carries this movie steer it away to become another generic superhero movie.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

The Wolfman (Joe Johnston, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 15:56:00 +0000

The Wolfman is the latest remakes of many Classic Universal Horror Monsters such Frankenstein, Mummy, Dracula. It is set in a gothic-feel Victorian era, Lawrence Talbot (a Latin Benicio Del Toro playing an Englishman), at the request of his brother's fiancée, Gwen, came home to look for his missing brother, Ben. He was found dead upon Lawrence's arrival with the body brutally mutilated by an unknown assailant. Lawrence tried to investigate until he was bitten by what appear to be the same culprit, the legendary werewolf who has terrorized this small settlement. He was rescued and miraculously recovered from the wound. By the next full moon, what have been suspected by the locals: Lawrence inevitably turn into a werewolf himself. At the same time, his feeling for Gwen is growing steadfast......

With Rick Baker, the make up maestro, one will think the design of the werewolf will be in safe hand. Well to be honest it's a kind of hit and miss situation here. While the transformation scene from man to beast was handled well, which anyway we are expect to see due to the advancement of the CGI technique, one can't help but notice the beast itself is too "human-like". Maybe it is just me, but i prefer the werewolf's snout more recognizable, like the one in An American Werewolf in London (Landis, 1981), where Rick Baker's make up won him an Oscar for the Best Special Effect category.

Stiff acting from A-List main cast cannot save The Wolfman as a howling, forgettable effort. Anthony Hopkins was the wolfman's estranged father but the wafer thin script did not flesh out the relationship between father and son. Hugo Weaving played a detective from Scotland Yard who was adamant to track down the whereabout of the beast. Emily Blunt provided the love interest as Ben's wife-to-be, but the romance part is hollow and too rush. It is perhaps the fault of Director Joe Johnston who should know he has a solid material in hand to build up the suspense, but no, instead we are served with lots of jumpy hallucination sequences using cheap scare tactic such as loud and sudden audio burst which kill the suspense mood. They even hired Gollum from Lord of the Rings to appear as cameo, no kidding. Hey, come to think of it, I think I also witnessed the fiery fighting between Wolverine and Sabretooth at the finale.

There are plenty of strong, bloody violence during those werewolf attacks. In fact the overdone gore implied the director's preference of making The Wolfman as by-the-numbers horror flick instead of say... a psychological horror thriller, at least they should have emphasize on the building up the suspense. The movie seems so eager to bring the first werewolf transformation to the audience and I wonder if the troubled production (allegedly due to creative differences), and a lot of the unused footages (end up on the editing room's floor), contributing to the poor pacing in the first half. Watch this movie only if you a real diehard werewolf fan while waiting for the aforementioned An American Werewolf in London remake.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Legion (Scott Stewart, 2010)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:59:00 +0000

How often is angel depicted as villain in movie? I can recall an androgynous Archangel Gabriel (by Tilda Swinton) in Constantine (Lawrence, 2005). This biblical related movie has a intriguing but flawed concept: Doomsday is imminent, because God the Almighty has lost faith in humanity, so He execute the annihilation of all mankind, (His intention is to "reboot" civilization again?). He sends His huge army of angels to do the deed with a specific target: To kill Charlie the waitress because she is bearing the baby who is apparently the saviour of humanity. She is trapped in a remote diner with a group of people. This is where the battle between angels and humans takes place at.

Two of the four Archangel are the main features here, Michael (played by the über-cool Paul Bettany), the rebellious cum merciful one and Gabriel (Kevin Durand) the one who ever so loyal to God. Michael defied God's command by protecting the pregnant Charlie from the onslaught zombie-like humans which possessed by angels. Legion echoed The Mist (Darabont, 2008), Dawn of the Dead (both original and its remake) where a group of people defending their fortress from the enemy.

If you can lap up God's method of wiping out mankind using angels instead of mass flood, then I suppose you will shake off the laughable image of Archangels Michael and Gabriel holding the firearm trying to shoot each other. Without revealing the twisted ending, this movie seems unintentionally ridicules God the Almighty as God the Indecisive.

In between the juicy action sequences, the dialogues spoken by the human characters are banally awful to say the least. I understand the idea of those chats is meant to provide the characters' background but clearly it backfired. Legion is a campy B-movie who hardly fulfils my so called guilty pleasure. Highlights such as the creepy old lady and the ice cream man are clever setpieces. As much as I fond of Paul Bettany, not even him able to salvage this sluggish end of the world kind of tale.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List

Let the Right One In (Swedish) (Tomas Alfredson, 2008)

noreply@blogger.com (SowYau) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:56:00 +0000

The legacy of vampirism are flourishing, continue to self-reinvent in big screen and TV all these years, Bram Stoker will be proud. This Swedish feature was adapted from the same name novel, Låt den rätte komma, literally translated as Let the Right One In. The author, John Ajvide Lindqvist was also hired for trimming the 480 pages bestseller into the script. The movie title is refer to famous vampire folklore, which a vampire cannot enter a residence unless being invited by the owner, or else the vampire will face the consequences as devastated as say, sprinkled with holy water or exposed to sunlight. I do not know whether the myth has been depicted in a movie before, but that key moment where a vampire breaking the said rule and what happen next is oddly heartwarming and powerful at the same time.

The setting is early 1980s, with the backdrop of cold landscape seemingly forever cover with snow in a small deserted suburban of Stockholm. Very often the calmly panning camerawork captured the serenity of under the roof. By using minimum editing, the gracefully waltzing camera movement soothe us with heaps of beautiful shots despite the occasional (mostly offscreen) grisly, bloodletting acts.

It is not a through and through horror movie. It is essentially a story about the relationship of two lonely souls. The pale looking blond boy, Oskar, has been bullied constantly by his peers, for reason I do not know, the introvert did not seems to fight back, he vented his frustation by himself, just like Robert De Niro did a "Are you talking to me?" monologue. They are destined to crosspath each other when Eli the little girl moved in to his next door. Eli said she is "more or less" 12 years old when Oskar asked her about her age. She also told Oskar to "hit back harder" on his bullies. From Morse Code-ing each other divided by party wall, they end up sharing their first kiss. Their relationship throughout the movie is ambiguity yet poignant. It is not an understatement to say the two young leads, Kåre Hedebrant (Oskar) and Lina Leandersson (Eli) gave a performance that will put most of the movie celebrities to shame.

By judging the superiority of this movie, the coming soon redundant american remake called Let Me In (helmed by Matt Reeves) will have a steep mountain to climb to match its undead sibling. To be able to survive from the embarrassing comparison with the original one will be a major triumph. Please take note that the subtitle is the heart and soul of the movie if you do not understand Swedish, please make sure the subtitle you are getting from Blu-ray or DVD are in English theatrical subtitle, such as Region 2 DVD from Momentum Pictures.

The ending keep me ponder whether it is tragic repeating cycles or happiness-in-the-making. To be honest, it work either way. Let the Right One In is a tale of adolescent friendship and love with vampire, it never hide the fact that the unspeakable horror seeps into the melancholic storyline, it is the testament to the masterpiece of moviemaking, much images from the movie stayed with me long after watching it. Flawless, unfathomable poignant, uncannily beautiful. Simply unmissable.

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it
2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution
3 stars = Generally good, you should watch it if it's your favourite genre
4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended
5 stars = A classic status? only time will tell. But it is definitely in SowYau's Hall of Fame List