Movie Review: United 93

It’s a rare circumstance when a movie manages to get its audience to feel awful, not because of the directing, or acting, but with its “plot”. And by plot in this particular film, it means a “real life event that can’t get any more factually accurate”. There’s hardly anything in United 93 that’ll remind you of Hollywood, no cheesy over-the-top CGI, no romance between invented characters that the story revolves around (Titanic, anyone?), none of the ingredients that instantly erases the credibility of the film. United 93 feels like a documentary of sorts, one that hasn’t been dramatized for the benefit of the audience. Overpowering is an understatement as we relieve the events of September 11 knowing that years ago, everything did happen for real. Unless you were zapped from Earth by a spaceship, there’s no way for you not to know the outcome, but predictable or not, this is a film whereby the ending isn’t the only climax.

United 93 tells a story that beats every other plot ever written for the screen. The irony? Nobody attempted writing its original screenplay. We watch as planes after planes are hijacked, the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon – all from the perspective of the terrorists, passengers, crew and ground officers. Instead of filming the events unfolding within the Twin Towers, United 93 takes its audience on board the plane destined for suicide terrorism. With nothing to lose trapped thousands of feet in the air, the last twenty minutes of the film feels like a window to what may have happened on board. Sure, we can never know what exactly went on on Flight 93, but that’s just about the only “fabricated” part of the movie. Very unlike your typical Hollywood script, there isn’t a scene after the crash revealing a survivor climbing out of the rubble, or a baby crawling out of its mother’s dead arms, or anything particularly miracle-ish. The sense of impending doom has never been this great, told through the lens of portable handheld cameras. True, the visuals aren’t as clear as those filmed by expensive digital equipment, but the presence of moderately shaky footage lends a sense of realism to the panic and chaos.

The cast of unknown actors and real airline crew is perhaps one of the movie’s best features. There aren’t any recognizable faces that remind you of the staged fights, so you almost believe in the existence of the characters on screen, united by the will to survive in the face of despair. There isn’t any holier-than-thou speech about religion or Americans, and director Paul Greengrass doesn’t try too hard to villainize the terrorists, who seem just as vulnerable and panicky. In fact, you’re forced to view them as people fighting for their beliefs in the scenes of them praying, and it’s not difficult to feel some sort of sympathy for their ‘misguided beliefs’. There’s no “rooting for whom”; United 93 isn’t an entertainment popcorn flick, but one that commemorates yet another tragedy.

A must-watch-and-no-pause.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Half Past Dead 2

What strikes me as funny about Half Past Dead 2 isn’t the movie, but the DVD cover. We see Burk (Bill Goldberg) wielding a gun on it, when he uses his fists pretty much throughout the entire movie. And here’s how it usually works: it can’t be a good sign when weapons make the marketing strategy because ninety percent of the time, the “action” in action films act like smokescreens to hide the fact that either the plot or the character development is lousy, or both.

Half Past Dead 2 is somewhat entertaining, but that could be because of my very, very low expectations (okay, maybe the weapons do help in a way). Much of the movie takes place in a prison, and nothing says “cue for violence” than a setting like that. Fistfights break out every ten minutes, but that’s where the film gets its much-needed tension to keep the audience in their seats. What’s so gorgeously refreshing about Half Past Dead 2 is its limited use of explosives and gunfire and basically overused CGI magic, so the film doesn’t come across as a well-choreographed roll of action sequences like something out of a Mission Impossible movie. It’s not high-tech, and it certainly is a scenario you can imagine happening in real life.

The film reaches its climax when two female visitors are taken hostage by a prisoner and used as pawns for escape, and it becomes a somewhat exciting and perhaps even an emotional ride (I use “emotional” loosely here) since the hostages are relations of the two lead convicts, one the girlfriend and wife-to-be of Bernard “Twitch” (Kurupt), the other the daughter of Burk. It’s not the highest degree of character development, but I give it to them for trying (Burk looks like a loving father despite his fearsome image, at least). The acting is perhaps the best part of the movie, and Kurupt may just be the Chris Tucker of B-grade action films.

Half Past Dead 2 isn’t a movie you can hate, and although it doesn’t quite qualify as “high art”, it isn’t exactly trash either for a low budget film. Definitely worth the watch, especially when you’re waiting for time to fly.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Leprachaun Back 2 Tha Hood

I’m small and wrinkly and I ain’t a raisin

Not all B-grade films are bad, but this certainly is. The world doesn’t need another movie about a deranged, sadistic killer out on the loose seeking revenge from some group of greedy or irresponsible teenage brats who start hurling vulgarities and then begging for mercy from a creature you know won’t let them go free and is practically immune to dying. Except…oh, I don’t know, a weakness that’ll eventually kill it leaving one or two survivors who’ll most likely end up (or are already) in a romantic relationship. What? I wasn’t giving you the synopsis for I Know What You Did Last Summer, or House of Wax, or Valentine, honest.

Back 2 Tha Hood may not have taken itself seriously; it could’ve been a mockery of films of the same genre and I can’t tell because it was so painfully bad (benefit of the doubt to the filmmakers here), but whichever the case, it was hardly funny. It’s actually quite disturbing to watch a tall guy beat up a smaller guy, and I can’t decide if it’s worse seeing the small guy let himself be bullied, then finally getting the strength out of nowhere to murder the big guy. I’d choose the dignity of V in V for Vendetta, or the mysterious cloaked killer in I Know What You Did Last Summer over a murderous dwarf as the baddie. Besides, I’ve yet to see a murderous villain who isn’t ugly or disfigured in some way.

This movie takes the opportunity to throw in the greatest clichés in film; a car chase with the Leprechaun dangling secretly somewhere on the vehicle, cowardly gangs, vulgarities, pot, etc. It isn’t a thrilling ride to the credits; the characters are the shallowest of levels, there’s the much dreaded half-hearted screaming, interesting patterns of blood, and I was beginning to feel like one of the characters crying “Why won’t he die?!”, because he just won’t, despite rounds of gunfire with normal bullets, gunfire laced with clover, getting punched in the face, run over by cars, and thrown into a furnace where we witness him burning to a crisp leaving behind a blackened skull. Who knows, the director may be the leprechaun himself, because the movie is the perfect torture.

Do yourself a favour; forget there’s such a DVD.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Catch And Release

There’ll always be bigger fish in the sea

There’s something remotely interesting about a movie revolving around someone you hardly get to see on screen. Take for example the sniper-caller in Phone Booth, played by Kiefer Sutherland, whose voice we hear throughout the movie threatening a very freaked-out Stu Shepard (Collin Farrell). The same goes for Catch and Release; Gray Wheeler (Jennifer Garner), after recently losing her fiancé to an accident we aren’t filled in much about, has moved in with her late love’s best friends as a coping strategy. I admit it’s quite a big leap to compare a faceless voice with a dead guy, but nevertheless, these movies are made because of them. Screentime matters, but it doesn’t literally mean you need to have your face on camera.

The plot is straightforward but subtle, and much of this can be attributed to the body language of the actors. Catch and Release doesn’t feature a well-known cast, the only “recognizable” person being Jennifer Garner, but the supporting actors do give quite a performance. Kevin Smith brings a good laugh every now and then with a good delivery of dialogue as slow and out-of-shape Sam (love a guy who’s capable of mocking his weight problem). It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that the script was written for each actor; I particularly liked the chemistry between all of their different personalities. The characters may be a little shallow, but so what? It’s entertaining, and it sure as hell doesn’t require the Al Pacino kind of depth to get you grinning. Here is a romantic comedy that doesn’t try too hard to be funny, or romantic; instead it’s a cooking pot whereby different characters interact with one another in a haphazard sort of way that passes off so naturally, it’s not difficult to see it unfolding in real life (well, it is inspired by a real life event). This isn’t to say it’s a reel of random footage of the mundane lives of grieving people, there’s still enough drama to keep you in your seat till the very end.

First-time movie directress Susannah Grant does a fair job weaving the story together, and who better to oversee its progress than the person who wrote the screenplay? This is the very same person who brought to you the depressingly sweet dialogue in Charlotte’s Web. Also, unless you have an avid interest in fishing, you may not notice that the title is actually a pun of the various romantic relationships happening in the film, as well as references to the sport, which explains the fishing-rod scenes. It’s a little tidbit and one of the film’s smart use of wordplay.

A light-hearted flick, you may want to watch this with your girlfriends, or a date.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Rapid Fire

I’m gonna get money from a bank but I ain’t withdrawing it

First impressions count, right? So the first thing you’re bound to notice on the DVD cover are the screenshots, because there isn’t a single one without someone holding a gun of some sort. Everything screams violence, so if you were expecting action, you’re right on target (no pun intended). Rapid Fire is definitely not the kind of movie you can really get into emotionally, though it’s hell of an adrenaline-pumping ride.

The film opens with the robbery, time warps and rewinds to a few days before the robbery, and finally, the robbery again together with an extended sequence of the cop chase. You won’t miss much if you fast-forward the film right up to the shootout, because the reasons behind the robbery aren’t anything you can’t think of (greed, freedom blah blah), and the planning isn’t as elaborate as in, say, Ocean’s 13. For something planned over a cup of coffee, I won’t say I was surprised things didn’t go according to plan. It’s hardly organized crime no matter how hard the directors try to pass it off as one; the robbers are reckless and as usual, cowards without their weapons. I suppose that’s why it’s “inspired by a true story”, because people aren’t as smart in real life to organize something as flamboyant as in Ocean’s 13 without the help of a proper script. Also, when it’s a true story, you are restricted by reality and logic.

Another thing you may notice are the fade-to-black footages you will either find annoying or intriguing in the middle of a shootout. Here’s something you probably don’t know: those are, in reality, commercial slots, because Rapid Fire was filmed for television and later transferred to DVD. Of course there aren’t any commercials, but the dissolves do sometimes ruin the pacing of a scene.

Rapid Fire is your typical car-chase action flick, though not particularly memorable for its plot or delivery. This film is entertaining in a way, but that’s only because people are emptying bullets into one another three-quarters of the movie.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: If Only

Do you like being helpless?

If Only is nothing but tragic. Nothing beats a romance story whereby two people in love don’t get to be together, and the filmmakers here throw in quite a twist as well – time travel (for lack of a better word, but you get what I mean. If you don’t, well, he gets to relive the day). Way to rub salt in the wound, no? You see, Samantha Andrews (Jennifer Love Hewitt), current girlfriend and possibly future wife of Ian Wyndham (Paul Nicholls), dies in an accident after a lover’s tiff, leaving an extremely guilt-ridden Ian who grieves like no other. If it weren’t for the film’s conclusion, one might even think of him as a self-absorbed. Add a little touch of fantasy, and a day is reversed for the benefit of Ian (and the audience). Usually, when time can be reversed, I’m generally jealous of the character, but since Ian apparently doesn’t have the power to change what matters the most in the past, I’m not so keen on relieving the dread he has to go through knowing what lies ahead. If you aren’t able to get anything out of the film, you ought to seriously appreciate not knowing what’s to happen in the real world.

What I liked about the film is its transition from the present and past. Unlike in Freaky Friday when the director clearly shows you the exchange of souls though cheesy spooky-midnight shots, or in The Butterfly Effect when things start going shaky to signify the start of a time warp, the sudden appearance of Samantha is unexpected and startling, so you won’t find it hard to identify with the shock and horror of Ian, whose face is unable to keep up with the multiple emotions going though his head. Much of the comedic relief comes into play here, because Samantha is clueless about her own death and “rebirth” while the audience, and particularly Ian, has to speculate about her return.

The film goes on to repeat the events leading up to the accident, and we watch as Ian tries desperately to prevent the inevitable. It is almost depressing to watch a guy so paranoid trying his best to save someone he loves dearly, and I was actually beginning to feel doomed like the horrible owner of a pet you know you probably have to put to sleep because of some life-threatening disease. The film leaves the audience hoping for a second miracle, but as the film progresses and nothing seems to have changed, the audience, together with Ian, reach an understanding that the past cannot be completely altered to suit one’s wishes. Moral of story? Don’t take things for granted.

There aren’t many films with the same genre, and If Only is definitely a film to catch. It’s rather engaging, and dare I say, quite a tear jerker!

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Shottas

Shottas, according to the “Shottas Dictionary” on the DVD extra features, really means “gangsters” in Jamaica, and what a gangster film this is. Compare this to the gangsters in our local dramas, and you’ll notice a world of difference. For one thing, the gangsters on Shottas don’t only threaten, they act as well. Sure, it’s Hollywood and people die all the time, but it isn’t comforting to know that the movie, however dramatic, is based on a true story of two young men growing up together in the dangerous neighborhood of Kingston. And when you’re raised in a place this tough, it seems the only way to go is to be a gangster.

Although there are gunfights and murder, robbery and drug trafficking, the film doesn’t go all out to impress its audience. Instead we are transported into a world of violence and greed, yet at the same time, loyalty and friendship. It’s a glamorous life, but not one without dire consequences. It’s easy to see why admittance into the gangster world can be addictive – there’s easy access to booze, drugs, money, power, status and women – but once caught in the web of greed, it’s difficult to want out. The film hardly glorifies the lives of such people, instead there’s almost always a sense of dread of what’s going to happen if someone screws up. Once in a while trouble comes from the other side of the law, but the film portrays such a dog-eat-dog picture of everything, it isn’t surprising when different triads turn on each other for greater power over territory. There are no second chances, make a mistake and pay with your life.

It’s not senseless murder all the time, however – the film does explore the relationship between its two main characters, and what I particularly find endearing is the fierce loyalty between both of them. Despite being gangsters and being able to kill without hesitation, they are capable of emotion, which I find extremely rare in films of the same genre.

Rated M18 for sex and violence, Shottas isn’t afraid to bring the endless terror and violence of the underworld to the big screen.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Nancy Drew

Lets make another book adaptation

You know what’s the biggest mystery yet to be solved? It isn’t why Tom killed Harry, or why Harry was jealous of Dick. It’s why directors choose to direct the movies they (have to) know aren’t going to be great successes. Nancy Drew may be a popular series; it may even have been good at the beginning, but when you have different writers contributing to a series under one pseudonym, it becomes terribly frustrating when they can’t decide amongst themselves the hair colour, age, vehicle model etc. the lead character is supposed to have. Because it drags through decades, old editions are revised to keep up with the modern world, so much so it becomes almost like people don’t know when to stop, and you keep thinking of phrases like “good things must come to an end”, “too many cooks spoil the broth”, “too much of a good thing” et cetera. It’s also common sense not to do an adaptation when something becomes this messy, but it seems as though director Andrew Fleming likes to be shoulder-deep in garbage. Like mating two dysfunctional creatures, the movie becomes even less engaging than the books.

The movie isn’t confusing, but it’s definitely strange to see the old-fashioned, mature detective we all know from the books sounding like a 12-year old and looking for clues through – I’m not kidding – the Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com), no less on a Mac laptop (she also listens to an iPod). The product placement is distracting, and it feels as though the filmmakers can’t decide on whether to set the film in the 50s or the present, what with her driving a vintage and getting chased by an SUV (Director: “I really, really want something antique to show off here.”)

What I did enjoy about the film most was the ridiculous “love triangle” between Nancy (Emma Roberts), Ned (Max Thieriot), and 12-year old Corky (Josh Flitter). If Josh Flitter isn’t the future’s Vince Vaughn, I don’t know who is. In a film that allows you to identify those without a sense of humour in the audience, Flitter gives the film a kind of much-needed cheekiness that Emma Roberts fails to bring to the table with her all-too-cheerful voice and exaggerated intelligence. In the history of movie randomness, Bruce Willis also makes an appearance as himself (!).

The film also stars Tate Donovan (The O.C) as Carson Drew, Nancy’s attorney dad whom she promises to stay out of trouble, although we know better from her reputation through the ultra-long series. Thankfully, the film doesn’t get sidetracked with mystery after mystery. Instead the plot centers around the death of a popular actress, whose unsolved murder has the young detective searching through various Chinese boxes, climbing through secret passages, and generally getting into heaps of trouble. It’s in a way ‘adventurous’, but also the sort of movie you don’t mind pausing and going for toilet breaks. The film hardly puts the audience on the edge of their seats, so the only time you’re going to hold your breath are the ‘bad guys chasing detective’ sequences. The criminals look as though they paid to take a course on “How to fail committing a crime”, so there’s no point breaking into a sweat on behalf of Miss Brilliant.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Population 436

An isolated town on the outskirts. An innocent, hospitable place, or so it seems. Population 436 follows the likes of House of Wax and Vacancy, where unsuspecting members of the city are trapped against their will in freakish places responsible for disturbing practices and mysterious disappearances. The film also revisits the annoying number conspiracy in The Number 23, except in this case, it’s 436. If you thought Jim Carrey was being a constant pain in the butt going on about his magic number, Population 436 has the whole town crazy about theirs.

It’s all about keeping the town’s population to a consistent 436 people. Each time someone is born, somebody else gets hanged, and like the deluded, crazy folks they are, the person to be hanged is supposed to consider it a blessing, like some sort of chicken sacrifice. Fortunately, they don’t exactly drink the person’s blood, so I’m grateful for that. There is some unintelligible gobbledygook about God’s will and the town’s history – a feeble attempt to explain the reason behind “436”, but that’s what it is – unintelligible gobbledygook. The film is hardly gory; instead it leans towards being a psychological thriller that messes, or aims to mess, with the audience’s mind. There are some disturbing scenes and cheesy uses of foreshadowing in dreams, but that’s about as psychologically scarred as you can get. The film doesn’t put you on edge, it makes you constantly slide back into your seat thinking, “When will they move on?”

The biggest problem with the film lies in its agonizingly slow pacing. The introduction to the main character seems to go on forever, and it takes every effort not to sit back, relax, and sleep. It’s the film’s way of building up on the creepy atmosphere, but after a while you just feel an urge to slap the town’s inhabitants, especially those who have a tendency of popping up and acting like lifeless, mechanical robots. They’re creepy, they’re too happy to be true, we get it. The film focuses on characters that seem important but aren’t really, and the filmmakers have a habit of not knowing when to cut a scene. Rated M18 for “Some sexual content”, I must say it could easily have been rated an NC16 or even a PG, since the so-called nudity isn’t at all fundamental to the film’s plot (the romance is extremely obvious). In fact, it’s like an added incentive for an otherwise unemotional film. I must say I’ve never been this calm watching a “thriller”.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: The Fox And The Hound 2

Here is a movie you should be wary of. With an original dating back as far as 1981 and a sequel released twenty-five years later, you can’t expect much to be the same, given the advances in technology and of course, the voices behind the cartoon characters. Unfortunately for The Fox and the Hound 2, the original tells of the friendship between two young and innocent animals, so getting the same talent to voice the kiddie parts becomes a big problem. Even if the actors working on the first film had been one-year-olds, they are without a doubt well past puberty now, so the filmmakers have landed themselves the tricky job of finding other people who will make a believable and consistent Tod and Copper. Fortunately for them, most children sound alike.

And what better way to lighten the burden by sticking in completely new characters! It’s exactly what they do, and they do manage to pull it off, except the whole movie revolves around the young Tod and Copper, so it completely throws the audience off for something named as The Fox and the Hound 2. It’s a sequel, so shouldn’t the film continue where it left off from its original, where the leads have grown into handsome, adult animals? The time warp is confusing, and it becomes hard to go back in time, find a suitable time gap, and stick the sequel in. It makes you appreciate the 1.5 in The Lion King 1.5 just a bit more, and you won’t feel so much that Disney’s just trying to rake the profits in.

The movie isn’t completely bad, but there’s just so much you can talk about friendship in a G-rated film. Things go wrong, we get it. I don’t think majority of friendships in the real world go through as many “tests” of loyalty as in the film, anyway. There’s jealousy, there’s stardom, a little new ingredients thrown here and there, but you know almost how the film’s going to take shape based on the first. And unlike The Lion King which went on and became a “trilogy”, The Fox and the Hound movies, targeted at a younger audience, fail to entertain in terms of witty humour. There’s humour all right, if you’re still getting cramps laughing from bang-here-bang-there jokes. Nothing much to look forward to in the sequel unless you’re a diehard fan, really. And if you happen to watch this, the few things keeping you in your seat are probably the music, and the bright, non-vintage animation. Despite the tiresome plot though, I have to applaud the gorgeous visuals and the similarity in animation. The characters do look exactly the same.

(First published at InCinemas)