Paradise Reel

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

Synopsis: Sam Witwicky heads off to college to start a normal life but is dragged into the war between the Autobots and Decepticons once again.

Two years ago, director Michael Bay unleashed his updated vision of the classic 80’s cartoon “Transformers” and at the same time, raping our childhood memories of the beloved cartoon. The storyline was whisper thin and filled with plot holes that could swallow planets. Even the designs and animation of the Transformers themselves lacked any real ingenuity. It is two years later and Michael Bay’hem is ready to release the follow up to that travesty and it is bloody apparent that he does not learn from his mistakes.

There are some things that I do like from the movie. Two things in particular, the inclusion of Megan Fox (”Jennifer’s Body” and “Transformers”) in the sequel and the explosive effects. For a director that made his mark blowing stuff up, he should be given a PhD in making destruction look really good on screen. Having said that, I believe that it should be the ONLY thing he is allowed to do from now on. He could be the “Cory Yuen” (stunt/action coordinator for movies like “Hero” and “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”) of explosive mayhem.

Plot and characterization are usually wasted on a Michael Bay film. Granted that this film had to be chiseled before the writer’s strike of last year, there is some serious lack of quality control here. The script was written by Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Ehren Kruger, the first two names were responsible for the initial Transformers movie. But they were also responsible for the witty and extremely entertaining “Star Trek” this year as well. The two films could not be further apart in terms of intellect and entertainment value. So I would have to attribute that disparity to the person who is tasked with visually translating that script for the screen (that would be the role of the director for those who do not know).

You would think that with two movies under their belt, they would have grasped the basic concept of the “Transformers” franchise, or at the very least, the basic concept of storytelling. They managed to get it right somewhat in the first film but this sequel shifts the focus firmly onto the human characters rather than the ‘Transformers’ themselves. The franchise title is “Transformers” and not “Shia LaBeouf and his shiny robot car”. Although Shia LaBeouf (”Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull” and “Eagle Eye”) does a convincing blabbering anti-hero, little can be said for his co-star Megan Fox. She looks amazing on screen but her acting consists primarily of screaming and pouting, usually at the same time. It is a testament to an actor’s craft when the non-live action characters display a wider emotional range than you do.

The story is just downright clunky and lumbering. They throw at us heaps of irrelevant scenes and plot lines that are dispensed mid way. I can still overlook gaping plot holes but dropping entire plot threads is just unforgivable. It is my strong belief that Michael Bay constructs his stories around the places he has not yet destroyed in his films. With that mindset in place, it will be clearer to the audience why certain irrelevant plot lines were played out while others omitted.

Even the humour in this sequel is heavy handed to the point of being banal. It is so ‘in-your-face’ that Mr. Bay’hem might as well be smacking you with a mallet at every proposed comedic element. There are your requisite farts; scrotum and jock strap gags that make you question the intellect of the creators of this film. Heck, the 80’s cartoon series that this film was based on had better dialogue than this drivel. If this were the target audience that they are aiming for, which makes up the bulk of the current Transformers fans, then I’d say that the Transformers franchise should be left to die and never resurrected again.

Speaking of cringe worthy comedic elements, there are two Transformers characters in this film that oddly resemble a certain racial stereotypical character that was lauded and lynched from Star Wars Episode One. So instead of taking an obvious cue of avoiding a beehive of criticism, they not only give us one copy of Jar Jar Binks, but TWO! Characterization has never been Michael Bay’s strong feature but even this is a new low for him.

The first live action Transformers film made a mint for the production studios and it is in their best interest not to mess with a good thing. Which translates that all the trappings that made the first film mediocre, are still present in this sequel. The Transformers are just a mesh of silver once they get into a fighting frenzy, forcing the audience to squint and speculate who is getting beaten by whom. It is clearly a design flaw on the production part as in robot form; the Autobots are almost indistinguishable from the Decepticons. Coupled with the “shaky” camera movements employed to add faux realism, the fight scenes could be migraine inducing for some.

Venture into the theaters only if you enjoy 2 full hours of explosions and mindless Bay’hem. But if you are a fan of the 80’s cartoon, do yourself a favour, dig out the 1986 “Transformers: The Movie” animated film and relive the true essence of the Transformers series.

Blood the Last Vampire

Synopsis: Saya, a 400-year old Vampire demon slayer, must hunt down and kill the demon who wiped out her entire family.

“Blood the last Vampire” started out as a 45 minute Original Video Animation (OVA) that was to serve as the first volume to a story that would unfold over three different mediums. Animation was the first, then followed by novels and finally, two video games. The novels and videogames did not reach the international masses as they were never localized for the overseas market but the Anime public embraced the OVA with reverence. It was instantly hailed as a milestone in Japanese Animation which pushed the boundaries of what traditional animation was. And it is also due to the very “fan reverence” that led Producer William Kong (“Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon”, “Hero”) to ponder the feasibility of making a live action adaptation of the Anime.

Which was probably the worst decision in the history of wrong decisions that French cinema has ever made.

There are some stories that fare better in their original medium. The universally despised film “Dungeons and Dragons” come to mind. But “Blood the last Vampire” just screamed to be adapted to a live action vehicle. It had all the major components of a summer blockbuster. The main protagonist is a 400 year-old (but looks 16) half bloodsucker, half human female demon slayer, potential for huge action sequences, a cross cultural setting and it’s about vampires. It is what Hollywood would label as a “sure hit”. So, it would have needed a pretty ‘remarkable’ cast and crew to screw it all up.

Someone really dropped the ball on this one. Be it the producer, the director, the scriptwriter or a combination of all three, there is no way any self respecting filmmaker would have released a movie like this one. Granted that this is about vampires/demons people are expected to suspend their disbelief. However, this movie requires us to take that disbelief and hang ourselves with it. I have to admit, the first 20 minutes were intriguing enough but there was so much rehashed from the anime that it would be hard to give any of the filmmakers credit for doing so. And once we are past that marker, everything just falls to mediocrity.

I’m actually really happy to see Jeon Ji Hyun (Gianna Jun to the American public) acting again after so long. Her breakthrough film “Il Mare” is one of my favourite films of all time and I have been following her career ever since. That said, I do believe that the role of the main protagonist, Saya, was miscast. Ji Hyun persona is just too sweet and feisty to carry off the brooding demon hunter with a chip on her shoulder. Don’t get me wrong, Ji Hyun is a joy to watch but in “Blood the Last Vampire” they basically get her to play the arrogant teenager for most of the movie. But on that note, she is probably the only aspect that is keeping the audience from walking out of the theater.

Chris Nahon only other film that I can recall is the Jet Li vehicle “Kiss of the Dragon” which incidentally was also a movie with a wafer thin plot. His penchant for fast jump cuts betrays his MTV background and it does not lend any benefit to Cory Yuen’s (”Hero” and “House of Hidden Daggers”) chorography. All of the action sequences are a myriad of staccato and slo-mo scenes that confuses us rather than showcase the elaborate stunts that Cory Yuen laid out. A fight scene is something along the lines of what we viewed in Zhang Yi Mou’s “Hero” or the “Wong Fei Hong” series starring Jet Li. Heck, even the fight scene in “Doom” had more adrenalin pumping through its imagery than Blood’s failed attempt at action.

I would venture into the visual aspect of the movie but to keep it short and sweet, lets just say that I’ve seen better computer generated imagery (CGI) in the portfolios of students looking for summer internships. There is one rooftop fight scene where the CGI is so badly composited you will wonder if you are watching the work-print or the actual movie itself.

I believe that the real problem here is that the filmmakers failed to grasp the concept of a Japanese anime. The story may be non-existent, but it would be a cold day in hell if the Japanese did not produce a visual arresting piece to mask the lack of story. How such travesty as the live action “Blood the last Vampire” made it through the quality assurance of William Kong, I will have no idea, till I find him, strap him to a chair and grill the information out of the bloke.

So to recap, we have a French director, a Hong Kong producer, a Korean actress, all trying to adapt a piece of Japanese animation to an American audience.

No wonder everything went to the crapper.

Terminator Salvation

Synopsis: John Connor, prophesized leader of the human resistance, must rise to his role in the war against the machines.

Two years ago, I got wind of a continuation of the Terminator franchise. After the dismal third outing, Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and the last Arnold Schwarzenegger movie, the studios wanted to edge in some buffer time before launching another ‘Terminator’ effort. Then I got news that they had hired McG to direct the next Terminator installment. This was the guy who not only brought to the world the fluffy “Charlie’s Angels” but its much lauded sequel, “Charlie’s Angels 2: Full Throttle” as well. The ‘best man’ they could find to helm one of Hollywood’s most revered movie franchise is the guy whose resumes’ two biggest highlights were critically panned TV-film adaptations? I honestly hoped that he would be able to break out from that mould and do some justice to the Terminator storyline as James Cameron (“Terminator” and “Terminator 2”) had lay out but I had an inkling that this would not be the case.

And I hate it when I’m right.

There is a term that people use when they foresee something bad happening. It is called a “recipe for disaster”. And I wonder what went through the studio executive’s head when he/she decided that it would be a marvelous idea to couple director McG and screenwriters John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris in the same movie. These were the two authors responsible for both “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines” and “Catwoman”. Needless to say, “Terminator Salvation” is devoid of any decent dialogue and any semblance of a plot for that matter. The scriptwriting is shoddy and the resulting film is peppered with gaping loopholes.

“Terminator Salvation” is a classic example of handing the next movie of a well-conceived franchise to a lesser director. James Cameron (“Terminator” and “Terminator 2: Judgment Day”) laid the foundation of a world at war with machines in the first two movies but he also gave us characters for us to invest our emotions in. McG populated his movie with flimsy paper caricatures that we could care less for. There is negligible characterization and even less direction on his part. The film meanders between the two main leads (Bale and Worthington) but never decides whose story to tell.

Christian Bale has solidified his acting talent over the course of his movies (“The Dark Knight” and “Prestige”) but here in “Salvation”, all he seems to be given to do is frown, spout juvenile dialogue, run and shoot. This goes for Bryce Dallas Howard (“The Village” and “The Lady in the Water”) too as she never gets any screen time to truly shine. The only actor here given any room to act is Sam Worthington (“The Great Raid” and “Hart’s War”) but his role is lost to the audience because no one bothered to develop his character’s story deeper.

And the action sequences are disjointed at best. You will encounter explosions and scenes with no lead-ins and a plethora of redundant shots. It is as if the director took a grand look at all the shots he made and cobbled together all the ones he thought was ‘cool’, and THEN tried to weave a story between them. Fans from the franchise will wonder why McG decided to recreate the ironworks fight scene from “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” in this movie. Even the initial battle scenes felt like it was just “Black Hawk Down” in the year 2018. Which is fine but with McG’s cursory characterization, his film ends up looking like Michael Bay’s “Pearl Harbour”. A lot of flash and bang, but hardly any substance.

The moral of the story is a simple one. If you want to reboot/re-launch/re-envision an already lucrative franchise, do not choose a director whose name belongs on a MacDonalds’ menu. New inductees to the Terminator world would probably enjoy this movie but true fans would much rather watch reruns of “Terminator 2” for the umpteenth time.

A tagline from the trailer of “Terminator Salvation” has John Connor lamenting, “This is not the future my mother warned me about…”

Hell, this movie is definitely not the future that James Cameron told me about.

Star Trek

Synopsis: This is NOT your father’s Star Trek.

Right off the bat, I’d like to say that THIS film is the most fun I had at the movie theater all year (so far). Granted, there will probably be some “Trekkies” who will form a lynch mob at the director’s front gate but at the bottom line, J.J. Abrams produced one of the most entertaining Trek films to date, considering the dearth of recent films from the franchise, it was mammoth task.

To be terribly honest, I was never a fan of all things J.J. Abrams. I was never compelled to catch a full episode of “Alias”, I loved the first season of “LOST” but that admiration dwindled quickly at the constant meandering plotlines of the rest of the series. “Mission Impossible III” was just an over stretched 30-minute episode. “Cloverfield”, which was produced by the man, felt like a gimmicky “Blair Witch Project” with a bigger budget. But with this reboot of “Star Trek”, I believe that Abrams has finally found a franchise that benefits from his style of direction.

By no means is JJ Abrams a bad director. There are a handful of blockbuster ‘auteurs’ that harbour little respect for the franchise they have been bestowed upon and have even less story sense (you all know who I’m talking about…) For Star Trek, Abrams managed to retain a huge chunk of the essence of what was the original series (TOS) as well as forge new ground in terms of Star Trek culture, all the while appealing to a wider audience than any of the other films ever could.

The special effects will be some of the best to ever grace any Science Fiction (Sci-fi) film, let alone a ‘Trek’ one. But its real stand out quality is subtly hidden in the spot-on casting of the movie. Every single cast member embodies the look and qualities of each of their characters perfectly. It also helps a bit that Zachary Quinto (“Heroes”) is a dead ringer for the Human/Vulcan cross-breed, Spock. And Chris Pine (“Just My Luck” and “Smokin’ Aces”) has an air of cheeky arrogance that gives his portrayal of James T. Kirk that much needed edge to set him aside from the “Kirk” that immortalized William Shatner (“Star Trek: The Motion Picture”, “Boston Legal”).

What Abrams and Co. has done was to hire actors who could play the ‘everyman’. John Cho (“Harold & Kumar go to White Castle”) lends his trademark uneasy grin to the role of helmsman Hikaru Sulu and Karl Urban (“Lord of the Rings” and “Doom”) brings his rugged charm to the role of Dr. Leonard ‘Bones’ McCoy. These are the kind of actors that you could actually relate to and have a beer with in a bar on a Friday night, not the larger than life counterparts of yester year.

The main disadvantage to any ensemble film is the time that is allowed to flesh out each and every character. While “Star Trek” does try its best to allot adequate screen time to each of its’ crew members, at the end of the movie, you would find yourself wanting to know more about these inhabitants of the Starship Enterprise. Which I feel is a tip of the hat to the creators’ as we just cannot get enough of these characters. Even with their limited screen time, the director was able to infuse little nuances and weave a cohesive plot that elevates each character to more than just cardboard cutouts that populate the scenery.

Roberto Orci (“Transformers”) and Alex Kurtzman (“Mission Impossible III”) churned out a script (along with Abrams) that works on multiple levels. With this re-envisioning, I believe that they will be able to not only appease the fans but impress the average movie-goer as well. Previously, watching a “Trek” movie meant having a fellow fan of Trek (ie. “Trekkie”) explain to you the inner workings of Trek mythology to even remotely understand anything from the movie’s plot. But here, the writers chiseled 40 years of Trek mythos into bite sized chunks for the 21st Century audience which could have been both a good and a bad thing but at the end of the day, it worked.

The “Star Trek” franchise has always been for me a more ‘diplomatic’ version of “Star Wars”, where most of any movie would be to feature h eavily alien races and species discussing and debating over the morals and implications of their would-be actions, constantly questioning the role of ‘humanity’ in our known Universe.

Now, the movie is definitely not your father’s “Star Trek”. This “Trek” film dispenses with all the earlier trappings that started to bog down an initially intriguing concept and to inject a bit more high adventure and mystery. This film literally chooses to boldly go where no “Star Trek” film has gone before…

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls

Synopsis: Indiana Jones 4th adventure takes him through the jungles of Central America in search for the lost city of the Crystal Skulls while avoiding capture from Russian spies!

My first encounter with Dr. Jones was during his escapade to save the children from The Temple of Doom. He swung into theaters in the summer of ’84 and I begged my parents to take me to watch it in the opening week. And then I begged them to bring me to watch again the following weekend. Then I repeated the same process about 15 times till they decided that to cure me of my Indiana Jones addiction, they would pretend to accidentally ‘buy’ the wrong tickets and stuck me in a theater that was playing the Kevin Bacon (”Death Sentence” and “Stir of Echos”) rebel movie, “Footloose”. Needless to say, I never forgave them for that.

Indiana Jones has been the pinnacle for adventure movies. Forget Brendan Fraser’s triple tango with walking toilet roll of the undead or the lacklustre female Dr. Jones’ clone packing the pair of huge… guns. Truth be told, there has been an Indy clone for all the years between the last and latest Indiana Jones movies. It is time for the real Doctor Jones to stand up, don his fedora, crack that whip once again, and set the mark for those on the bench to follow.

There has been plethora of scepticism surrounding Crystal Skulls, from the multiple delays to the dismissal of one of the top screenwriters/directors in, to even Harrison Ford’s receding hairline. Even now, with the debut of the new movie, fans have been split down the middle. Either they hate it or they love it. As I would not go as far as to herald this outing as one of the best Indiana Jones films out there (mine is still Temple of Doom), it is not subpar by any stretch of the definition. In fact, I would certain that Spielberg’s latest offering does preserve all the things we love about the part time professor of archeology, full time adventurer.

At the core of every Indiana Jones film is an adventure. Be it the hunt for religious relics or abolishing child slavery, you have thrills that keep you tettering at the edge of your seat. “Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls” every ounce of essence, is an adventure. Although the subject matter is firmly rooted in the ‘paranormal’ but which Indiana Jones film is not? “Raiders” had a golden chest that vapourised anyone who was within visual distance. “Doom” had the main villain rip out the beating heart of a slave who was after that still alive long enough to be lowered into a pit of lava. And there is “Crusade”, where if we all remember at the end of the film, made Indiana a Knight of the Cruciform Sword and thus an immortal.

As with all Indiana Jones movies, “Crystal Skulls” is just one big roller coaster ride. All the trademark action sequences are present in this rollick through ancient artifacts and exotic locales. For the astute Indy fan, some of the thrills do share a resemblance to their counterparts in previous films but they are adorned with new twists to make them fresh. The special effects have improved tremendously but one still yearns for the old school style of movie making where props and puppets were the order of the day as opposed to CGI (computer generated imagery).

Harrison does not bust any acting bones in this film but its hard to criticize an actor who was born to play a role. Indiana Jones and Harrison Ford are synonymous. There is only one man in the world who can convincingly take a beating, smirk and live to tell the tale, all while his fedora stays firmly on his head, and that is Harrison Ford. Everyone looks like they are having fun time acting in this film, from Karen Allen (“Raiders of the Lost Ark”) to Oscar winner, John Hurt (“Alien” and “V for Vendetta”) to even franchise newcomer Shia LeBeouf (“Transformers” and “Disturbia”), as they all deliver on all counts. Cate Blanchett (“Lord of the Rings” and “Notes on a Scandal”) is just pristine as the Russian agent sent to capture down the good doctor. She is able to add just that dash of campiness that does not discredit the entire film but still makes you grin to yourself in the dark.

It is reassuring to see Steven Spielberg is able to shift between subject matters so effortlessly and still retain his eye for awe and wonderment. The pacing within this film is purely textbook. Miniscule obstacles and threats building up to a climax that does not disappoint. The plot however does suffer from a bit of over simplicity. It is similar to that of “Crusade”, where Indiana is called in to help further the research of a previous mentor although the explanations to the puzzles are a tad cursory.

George Lucas and Steven Spielberg did not make a film just for the rabid fans who grew up watching Indiana Jones. They also made “The Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls” for that 8 year old kid who loved their first introduction to adventure so much that they begged their parents to take them to the theater just to see it again. And again. And again. So for those who have an inner kid locked away somewhere in your subconscious, give that little fella a treat and take him to watch the adventure that started it all.

El Orfanato

Synopsis: A mother brings her family to the orphanage where she grew up in to start a centre for children with special needs. Her son begins to have imaginary friends which leads her to discover a secret that threatens to destroy everything that she loves.

This blog has been dead to the world for a large portion of last year and I always wanted to resuscitate it but just could not find the right time or movie to do it with. There were some notable films of ’07-’08 like “3:10 to Yuma” and “The Kite Runner” but nothing really propelled me to dust off the keyboard and start jamming keystrokes. Well, that was all before I decided to watch “El Orfanato” one warm Saturday evening and I was kindly treated to one of the best films of its genre (and outside of it too!) that I have ever come across.

It is actually a challenge to categorize a film like “El Orfanato”. Labelling it as a ‘horror’ film would be a half truth as it does possess all the scares that your generic factory packaged fright flick. At its core is a dramatic exploration of a mother-son relationship. Draped around that is an atmospheric creepiness that just slithers beneath your skin. This is more akin to a drama with horror elements than the other way around which makes for a very refreshing take on the battle-hardened horror genre.

Guillermo Del Toro (”Hellboy” and “Blade II”) protégé, Juan Antonio Bayona manages to create a world within his film that slowly creeps on you without you noticing. My first introduction to Spanish horror was then film “El Espinazo del diablo” (The Devil’s Backbone) by Del Toro and it was a brilliantly haunting take on the Spanish Civil War. There are some similarities between “El Orfanato” and “El Espinazo del diablo” which leads me to believe that Del Toro’s influence has exceeded his producer role. For starters, both films are set to the backdrop of an orphanage and both involve kids who have a keen eye for the paranormal. But be it Del Toro or Bayona, the film “El Orfanato” has definitely benefited from both their inputs which resulted in heralding the return of true cinematic ‘horror’.

The Del Toro/Bayona combination has crafted a very comprehensive film. Every scare, twist and tangle has been planned and executed with diabolical precision. The filmmakers plays tag with the your psyche by drowning you with anticipation and then hits you with something that you are totally not expecting. They will slyly let you in on when each scare is about to appear but they will never reveal the what or how. Nothing in this film is wasted on cheap scares as everything that occurs in the film supplants the story which cumulates to an ending that is not only unexpected but fitting as well. This is how ‘real’ horror films should be made.

It puzzles me how most European actors are able to embrace their roles so thoroughly. Perhaps we are just not exposed to the bad European actors like we are with the American ones (Hayden I’m looking at you!) but they always manage to slide into their roles with uncompromising ease. The female lead, Belén Rueda (“Savage Grace”) has the arbitrary task of carrying the entire the film and she performs her role of idealistic caregiver to desperate mother with unflinching conviction. The rest of the cast are no slackers either as they blend into Bayona’s filmic world perfectly. Every cast member has a certain de-glamoured look about themselves which complements the grounded realism of film.

The synopsis at the beginning just barely scrapes the surface of this multi layered horror gem. This is a film that just as much depth as it has heart. Gore buffs stay away as there is hardly any gory scenes to speak of, save one. And even so, it is brief. Scare seekers on the other hand would love this film as it will incite all manner of screams and whimpers throughout the audience. “El orfanato” will send a shiver down your spine that will resonate even after the closing credits have disappeared.

Spiderman 3

Synopsis: the Greatest challenge Spiderman has to overcome is…. himself. (But wasn’t that roughly the same premise for Spiderman 2?).

This would be my first time reviewing a movie from the Spiderman franchise since the inception of this blog. To be terribly honest, I loved the first film for its sheer brilliance in conjuring up a character that we could all identify with and adored the second one for building on the first film, and just bringing it to a whole different kick arse level. Now we all know that Spiderman 3 has opened to insane amounts of movie going dollars for the people at Sony Pictures and Marvel and has cemented Spiderman into our pop culture consciousness for at least another half century. But holding this up against the backdrop of the previous two films, this latest offering is the weakest of the three.

The first Spiderman film was one of the few movies that spearheaded the renaissance of big budget re-envisioning of comic book heroes (anyone wants to forget the flake that was Joel Schumacher’s Batman & Robin?). It had been in development hell for a good part of last century and no one would touch it. Then the first X-men movie came along in 2000 and proved to be critical and box office hit which sent the Hollywood executives copying the formula faster than the Hilton heiress can release her next ‘video’.

So, with the first two films in the backing the franchise, it was natural for the 2nd sequel to go ahead, which I feel was more of a Hollywood decision than an editorial one. There are a lot of stories to tell within the Spiderman Universe but they have to be told in a concise manner and paced properly. This film feels like they were trying to cram in too much in its 2 hour and 20 minute frame. From a purely storytelling point of view, the third film has enough plots and storylines to stretch for three more movies. On hind sight, I can understand that this is the last film all the principle cast members and crew are slated for and I’m sure Sony Pictures wanted to milk it for all its worth before they lose their cash cow. It was even revealed in a interview with the director Sam Raimi (“Evil Dead” and “A Simple Plan”) that producer Avi Arad requested him to weave a storyline into the film for one of Spidey’s arch-villains, Venom as “the fans would like it”. When making a film of such a huge following, there is a lot of pressure to serve the fans rather than serve the story. Sadly, it was the former that they chose to satisfy this time round.

There is still no excuse for the sloppy storytelling that plagued this movie. A lot of the pieces of this film feels like they were chiseled together as an afterthought and there parts of the film just beckons to be edited out. This is definitely not the Sam Raimi that I’m familiar with. His previous films like, “A Simple Plan” and “Darkman” were also very ‘compacted’ movies but not to the point where it leaves no room for characters to develop at a reasonable pace. The past two films had one villain each and one could really identify and empathize with them. This one has Spiderman contending with a total of three villains at one go (which would make any Spidey fan boy’s wet dream, mind you) but they are pretty much characters without consequence.

One gripe that I have never been able to shake off was that of Tobey Maguire donning the Spider suit. I had no qualms for him to play Peter Parker as he certainly does look geeky enough (and I know my geeks mind you) but every time he takes off the mask and parades around just kills the illusion for me. But he has done a decent job as Spiderman, till now. Sure, Tobey is great as a geek but he just cannot pull off “anger” and “resentment” properly. This was the only one time in the entire franchise that the character of Peter Parker/Spiderman has some really juicy bits and he just misses the mark on all of them. Scenes that requires Maguire to portray smoothness and slickness comes across as charming as the “crack of a plumber’s butt”.

Even James Franco (“Flyboys” and “The Great Raid”) has more convincing emotional range than Tobey, which is probably the films’ only saving grace. Kirsten Dunst fares pretty much the same as from the previous movies and new additions to the Spidey Universe, Topher Grace (”That 70’s Show” and “In Good Company”) as Eddie Brock and Bryce Dallas Howard (”The Village” and “Lady in the Water”) as Gwen Stacey manage to pick up the acting slack but their roles never really amount to anything. The most under utilised actor in the whole ensemble would have to be Thomas Hayden Church (”Sideways” and “George of the Jungle”) as the shape-shifting Sandman. A character actor reduced to just showcasing 20 shades of emotional turmoil is just sacrilegious.

At the very least, this film will entertain the legions of fans it has garnered over the past 5 years since the first movie hit the theaters. On the flip side, followers of the comic books would probably cry bloody murder over some of the ‘artistic licenses’ employed throughout this movie. “X-men 3: X-men United” was lauded by critics (and me too) as the worst of the lot. Here we have another 3rd installment of a franchise not meeting the standards set by the previous two. Granted that this movie is still worth the 9 bucks you pay to enter a blackened theater, navigate around screaming kids in the dark, just to get to your cushioned chair, popcorn filled courtesy of the previous occupant. The bottom line is that this is a summer blockbuster and it will ‘entertain’, and it will rake in the money. But sadly, do not expect more from it for this latest outing will definitely leave you ‘hanging’.

Sunshine

Synopsis: Fifty years into the future, the Sun is dying and Earth’s last hope of survival is a team of scientist on a journey to our nearest star with a mission to revive it.

My first encounter with Danny Boyle was a little known film called “Shallow Grave”. It was a movie that explored the dynamics of three friends and the limits of their relationships when they chance upon a bag full of untraceable cash falls into their hands. It had all the trademark Boyle trappings and I was hooked. “Trainspotting” cemented what I already knew about this off beat director from Manchester, “The Beach” was a romp on the wild side and I was onto “28 Days Later” faster than red on rash. So when I heard that Danny (we’re on a first name basis now) was coming out with a movie that harks from the sci-fi genre, you could bet your last dollar that I already had first day tickets.

There are only so many ways to scream in space, and Danny knows that all too well. His movies are essentially character studies. He throws his characters in a melting pot situation and explores the extremes that they would go to survive. “Shallow Grave” was about friends and money, “Trainspotting” was about friends and drugs and “The Beach” was about a paradise found and lost. His movies are akin to experiments on the state of humanity. And “Sunshine”, is no different.

Director Danny Boyle and scribe Alex Garland have worked together on “The Beach” and “28 Days Later” which would mark their third collaboration. A script lays the ground rules for any movie and the director takes it to a another level of creativity. An advantage of working with a scriptwriter whom one is familiar with is that there is almost a symbiotic relationship between the writer and director which usually results in a better made movie (Example of a bad collaboration: “The Matrix: Reloaded and Revolutions”). Both Boyle and Garland cobbled together a script that examines the intimate, not to mention delicate, balance of egos and personalities of a group of people, stuck together in what is essentially a metal coffin for a year and a half, hurtling through space on a mission where the fate of humanity rests on their success.

This is Cillian Murphy’s (“Red Eye” and “Batman Begins”) second outing with Boyle and company after his breakout role in “28 Days Later”. He portrays the unwilling physicist, who is responsible for designing the device that will hopefully re-ignite the sun, similarly to his role in “28 Days Later”. His character goes through a similar development arc from meek geek to the unwitting hero in this film and it is a role that he dons with ease. Cillian has a look of contained eccentricities that befits his scientist on a suicide mission role perfectly. Michelle Yeoh (“Memoirs of a Geisha” and “Police Story 3”) was a surprise treat for me as her role was not publicised in any form or manner for this film. She is a competent actress and it was a honestly a pleasure to see her be given more roles that allows her to flex her acting muscle instead of her physical ones.

Rounding out the cast is Chris Evans (“Not Another Teen Movie” and “Fantastic Four”) who pretty much rehashes his previous roles from “FF4” and “Cellular” but this time as the pragmatic hot shot pilot. Cliffe Curtis (“Whale Rider” and “Training Day”) plays the onboard psychiatrist/doctor for the company of scientists who tethers on the edge of sanity. Rose Byrne (“Marie Antoinette” and “Wicker Park”), Troy Garity (“After the Sunset” and “Bandits”), Hiroyuki Sanada (“The Last Samurai” and “The White Countess”) and Benedict Wong (“Dirty Pretty Things” and “Spy Game”) fill up the remaining crew members.

One of the highlights of this film would definitely be the cinematography. German borne Alwin H. Kuchler composes some of the most exquisite shots of space this side of “2001: A Space Odyssey”. Never will you find more well crafted spectacles of space since Kubrick’s cinematic masterpiece. He is able to bring you deathly close to the action or amplify the vast loneliness of space and still marry the two extremes within the same scene without having it ever be jarring.

If you love Danny Boyle’s movies, you are going to love “Sunshine”. He infuses well worn genres with his distinctive blend of style, cinematography and story that is just refreshing to watch. Do not watch this if you are a pop-corn sci-fi fan (the people who felt doomsday summer blockbusters like “The Core” or “Armageddon” were highbrow fare) for you will unfortunately find that the thrill-a-minute action sequences are considerably missing. But even if you are not a fan of science fiction, watch this if you are in the mood to have your brain lightly pricked and slightly picked for this is not your ordinary sci-fi flick.

TMNT

Synopsis: The Turtle Brothers have to band together to defeat an ancient curse that would lay New York City in ruins. And we can’t have that can we?

I will admit it right here and now that I was a turtle-head way back in the day when eating pizza was so popular that it was warranted its own food group, when living in a sewer was hip and practicing “Ninjitsu” was a social norm for adolescents. I begged my parents to buy me the toys, the comics, the video games to even the kiddy colouring book and I knew the theme song better than Abraham Lincoln knew his Gettysburg address. Needless to say, this was probably one of the last cartoons series that I’ve ever followed with such childlike fervor and it’s a nostalgic headtrip to see the franchise burst back into mainstream culture once more.

With THAT out of the way, I can safely say that the film “TMNT” (short for Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles because acronyms are so much cooler!) will definitely appeal to the current generation of “Turtle-heads” as well as satisfying the “Ninja Turtle” fans from the original comic days. And by that I mean the very first Turtle incarnation that spawned out of a sketch Kevin Eastman penciled together based on a zany story idea by Peter Laird. The comics were gritty, violent and much welcome break from all the mainstream placid kiddy comics of that era (I was coming out of my “Archies” phase).

Now twenty years on, this new CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) flick updates our most beloved underground sewer crimefighters with the bit of the old and the best of the new. All of our favourite characters are back save for their arch-nemesis Oroku Saki, better known as “The Shredder” which was fine by me because I’ve always thought he looked more kind of kooky than menacing especially if the name of his alter ego is more akin to that of a kitchen appliance.

The four brothers, Leonardo, Raphael, Michaelangelo and Donatello are back and ready to kick some serious shell. April O’Neil (Sarah Michelle Gellar; “Buffy” and “Scooby Doo”), Splinter (Mako; “Crying Freeman” and “Pearl Harbour”) and even Casey Jones (Chris Evans, “Fantastic Four” and “Sunshine”) return for this outing and new additions include Karai (Zhang Ziyi; “Rush Hour 2” and “Memoirs of a Geisha”) and Mr. Winters (Patrick Stewart; “X-men 1&2” and “Star Trek”) round off this stellar voice ensemble.

There were two series of cartoons that were produced for our pizza munching mutants, one that started in 1987 and another in 2003. The film takes its character cues from the latter series which adds a lot more edge to each of the characters rather than having to adopt the kiddy friendliness of the former version. I take it that the children of the 21st century have evolved to lot more demanding bunch. The story line is a simple one but carries a resonating theme of ‘brotherhood’ throughout. I would have liked it better if they fleshed that out a bit more during the course of the film as this feels rather Leonardo/Raphael centric. I felt that the camaraderie from the original cartoons and even the live action movies was significantly glazed over in this movie.

The pacing at the beginning of the film was drawn out and built up the scenarios rather quickly. It also allowed for convincing character development early on in the film but the latter half of the movie felt terribly rushed and compacted. It was almost as if they realised that they ran out of time or money to tie up the story and dispensed some key plot points in lieu of the movie’s runtime. Perhaps we might see a ‘director’s cut of this come three months later when the DVD is released, who knows. But that still does not excuse the fact that this would have been a great movie if they had taken their time to complete the story. One thing that stands out for this movie is the level of 3D animation that it has achieved. The level of realism here could easily cause animation giants like Pixar and Dreamworks to literally start “shaking in their shells”.

Watch this if you are an 80’s cartoon junkie who just cannot get enough of old school franchises getting the 21st century update (like me) or if you are an animation buff looking for some solid 3D animation (also like me). Non-fans of the franchise (ie. Parents) might find it a little hard to justify forking out good money for this but hey, your kids are gonna love it.

Snakes on a Plane

Synopsis: It is a movie about snakes on a plane. Do you need me to say anything else?

This is probably the only movie I know that is just worth the ticket price for that one line of dialogue coming out of Sam Jackson’s mouth (“Enough! I’ve had it with these M*therF*ckin’ snakes on the M*therf*ckin’ plane!” just keeps playing over and over in my head). “Snakes on a Plane” is just so bad that is falls off the scale and pops up at the other end of the spectrum. It is campy, and the plot is rather ludicrous but frankly scarlett, I don’t give a damn. This film is the every bit of the B-grade movie it claims to be and best of all, it never takes itself seriously.

Sam Jackson is back in familiar territory as the butt kicking, foul mouthed, hard arse that we have been waiting for him to play again (RE: “Pulp Fiction”, “S.W.A.T.” and “The Negotiator”). I honestly think that the 3 Star Wars Prequels would have been bloody awesome if ol’Georgie had just let Mr. Jackson belt some expletives throughout the trilogy. “Enough! I’ve had it with these M*therF*ckin’ Sith in my M*therf*ckin’ Jedi meditation chamber!”

Of course, a movie this enjoyable has to have some things wrong with it. It is just the Murphy’s Law of movie making. For starters, there are plot holes so huge that you could drive a tractor trailer through. But we don’t care. The acting is as campy as having the Village People do their stage rendition of “Brokeback Mountain”. But we don’t care. The computer generated snakes look about as real as that rubbery thing in your younger sibling’s toy chest. And we don’t really care about that either. We are here for the mindless violence (which is pretty much as non existent as Singapore’s culture) and the gratuitious nudity (and that is only limited to one scene…hey, I want my money back!)

The only shortcoming that I can forsee for this film is that it is a fanboy’s film. It is not a movie that everyone will enjoy, especially those who actually took the film “Long Hu Men” seriously. This film was made for fans of this genre and pretty much them only. It is a niche movie that you gather all your male friends and organise a movie outing for. I would expect this film to be inducted into all the fraternities across the United States’ Movie Hall of Fame. For further fratanizing enjoyment, try this game during the film. Every time you see a snake on screen, drink a can of beer. By the middle of the film, you will be so plastered silly that you’ll enjoy the film anyway.

I believe the writer (or writers, this film had 4) of the film sat down one day on his toilet bowl and wondered “how many interesting places on the human body can a snake bite?” and then he went about to write the script for “Snakes on a Plane”. There is a significant amount of bodily mutilations throughout the movie, both reptile and human alike. And of course your token topless scene. The most creative aspect of the movie has got to be the title. “Snakes on a Plane”, how brilliant is THAT?? You know exactly what you’re going to get right from the start. There are no ambiguous subliminal titling like “Lost in Translation” or “The Cider House Rules”. This film is as forthcoming as Hollywood is going to get. The film is about SNAKES-ON-A-PLANE. And it delivers.

I guess I have to touch upon the acting at some point of the review and why not now. Basically this film is like a class at acting school playing a host of stereotypes on steroids. Cliches are abound and aplenty. You have the fat black guy who is really good at video games, the ditzy blonde whose best friend is her canine companion, the slutty stewardess, the horny pilot, the asian martial artist, the guy who has the fear of flying. They are all there and the list goes on. This film is just fun to watch with your buddies and friends of the female gender seem to have enjoyed the film too (the one that went with us anyway). So, if you’re high after a night of clubbing and have nothing to do, make your way to some midnight movie theater and catch this film. This movie is fun when you’re sober and even better if you’re drunk.