Movie Review: Iron Man

You know that feeling when you visit a certain chicken rice stall and you just know that that particular one is THE one after taking the first mouthful? You can’t place what’s so awesome about it, but there it is, the most delicious, tastiest plate of chicken rice you’ve ever eaten. It’s so addictive you just want more. Iron Man is something like that.

And like the many chicken rice stalls peppering the country, Iron Man stands out from all the other comic book superhero films being released every now and then. It’s a popular genre, but Iron Man just has that secret ingredient that gives all the others a run for their money. Maybe it’s the charm of Robert Downey Jr., the down-to-earth, realistic approach of the screenplay to suit the silver screen, the unconventional willingness to be a hero (as opposed to the usual wrong-time, wrong-place reluctance of many superheros) or even the lack of a cheesy love triangle – I could go on for hours - Iron Man feels almost incapable of any criticism. It’s not Oscar material since this is an entirely different league we’re talking about, but as far as summer blockbusters go, this one freaking rocks.

The filmmakers, to their credit, have made superb observations of previously released CGI-heavy films. They’ve minimised the visual and special effects in exchange for a meatier plot dealing with real-world issues like terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, which is a plus considering they are issues you and I can identify with. It’s not a battle of good and bad, there’s no genetic engineering or aliens, just a disgruntled and vengeful guy extremely good at what he does, which is technical engineering. Or whatever you call it in layman’s terms. 

The comic is not afraid to say “Hey, our hero was once a womanising arrogant prick who got kidnapped by terrorists wanting to exploit his intelligence and now he wants revenge.” He’s not your goody-two-shoes who fights for the goodness of all (Superman), or pretends to fight for the goodness of all when he’s really just pissed his uncle got murdered (Spider-Man). No, Iron Man just wants to even things out eye for an eye by hunting down his captors, and he’s ridding the world of terrorists at the same time, so what’s wrong with killing two birds with one stone, even if the roots of his heroism aren’t totally great? That’s what so lovable about the franchise. It’s a personal war between the hero and the villain, where the villain isn’t out to kill for killing’s sake (hello, Green Goblin). It’s not even like in Spider-Man, when Harry wants Peter dead because he mistook Peter to have killed his father. No hostages are taken, only good old hand-to-hand combat. 

That said, the movie doesn’t have the kind of chaos that Michael Bay is famous for, and I’m glad it doesn’t. If you like watching big fights and crazy climaxes, you probably won’t like the minimal fight scenes in Iron Man. There’s more time spent on developing Tony Stark, and even more on his building of the suit/costume, but the film is pretty quiet on the whole for an action superhero movie. It’s a serious film about serious subjects, but director Jon Favreau at least has the sense not to make this a pompous movie by inserting truly funny jokes. Not verbal in-your-face ones, but jokes that speak for themselves. I suppose I also ought to credit the editor for his jump cuts. 

Tony Stark didn’t start of wanting to be a hero, he became one just for the heck of it because he suddenly felt like it one day. Also thumbs-up for not concealing his identity. Here you have a suit of armour that completely conceals its wearer’s identity (Unlike the flimsy disguise thrown on by Superman. Come on.Glasses?), and you have a hero that doesn’t want to have his identity hidden.

What can I say? Expect to be blown away.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Black Book

Some movies make you go ‘wow’. This is one of them. Black Book is nothing short of a spectacular, gripping and intense recollection of Ellis de Vries’s (Carice van Houten) double (triple?) life as a spy, set during the Second World War. The movie has you fooled into believing it is a true story, and even if it isn’t, it can very well pass off as one.

The only survivor of an ambush while fleeing from the Nazi-occupied part of Netherlands, Rachel Stein (former Jewish singer who later goes by the alias Ellis) becomes part of a resistance group and becomes tasked with infiltrating the enemy. She seduces SD officer Ludwig Müntze (Sebastian Koch), and is soon offered a job at Gestapo headquarters where she carries on leading her double life. Typing the synopsis would give a lot away, but this is where the double-crossing begins, kind of like in The Departed except here the filmmakers leave you guessing instead of revealing who they are.

Gone are the macho green men in warplanes; this film makes Pearl Habour look like a broken toy. If anything, it’s good advice to toss every kind of Hollywood cliché out the window – director and writer Paul Verhoeven has you eating out of his hand with every scene. There are no villains – just traitors and people fighting for different causes, unless you count the good o’ soldier murdering for greed. My favourite part? Characters you don’t expect to die dies, and you can practically see Verhoeven’s smirk as he murders important characters without batting an eyelid. There’s no miracle, no ‘wait-he’s-innocent-he-can’t-die’s. 

Speaking of violence, this film is one of the few that keeps its bloodletting real. People get shot, but there aren’t excessive amounts of blood or really any exaggerated gore. Verhoeven doesn’t just stop there either, he tries to lighten the mood with several offhand jokes, and this may seem quite inappropriate for a film that certainly isn’t a comedy, but you laugh all the same because you appreciate the lucky break a character has suffering from a gunshot wound rather than being killed. All this restraint only gives the film an agonisingly real quality, so when people get hurt, you can tell not from the amount of blood that they’re really hurt, but from their expressions. Which leads me to acting, and…this review will sound even less like a review and more like a gushy rant if I go on. Suffice to say everyone would have bagged all the Oscars for acting.

Having established the film’s genius at storytelling, it’s also an advantage to read up on the Nazi regime and massacre of the Jews. It’s not hard to understand the movie if you don’t, but it’ll be less frustrating if you have some background knowledge of the subject. This is one film you want to re-watch on DVD with the privilege to rewind and replay, because one sitting is never enough when you have various characters leading double lives. 

Packing more “oh shit” moments than anything else, one can’t pretend to identify with Ellis. You sympathies with her, you feel her vengeance, but you cannot quite say you understand, because you haven’t had to experience the massacre of your entire family in a shoot-out. Watch this as you would from the comfort of the cinema, watch this with the detachment of a third party, but to claim to know how it feels would be hypocritical indeed.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Nim’s Island

Nim’s Island is the sort of movie that lulls children into a false sense of freedom and security that anyone experienced enough knows won’t happen in real life. But then again, one can argue that movies are made as a form of entertainment, a departure from the real world, so why can’t Nim have sea lions and pelicans for friends and live with her scientist dad on a remote island like two castaways? The movie has all the makings of an adventure reminiscent of the Famous Five series – there’s an alluring island (with a volcano no less), animal friends, and the tingling sense of excitement that comes with living on a piece of land in the middle of an ocean.

The movie starts off as a seemingly light-hearted film about the lives of the daughter-father pair, but then all hell breaks loose when a storm hits the island and daddy is trapped at sea while on an algae-collecting expedition. By “hell”, I don’t mean The Perfect Storm, or even Cast Away. This is the miniature, trial version of hell for kids only, like the shallow end of a swimming pool. It’s not frightening, but it may be to kids. You’ll certainly find yourself worrying about Jack Rusoe (Gerard Butler), and you’ll also want to hit him for putting a bottle of algae before his life. That’s dedication for you, nevermind the stupidity that comes along with it. This is what I mean – the film tries to impart moral lessons (as all kids’ movies try to do), but it goes about it the lazy way where characters are saved more by crazy luck and really smart pets than the morals themselves. 

I’ll give the film its credit for plot, though it really has the authors of the book it’s based on to thank. The reason why the storyline feels so refreshing is because there aren’t many movies around with the backdrop of an island. There was Cast Away, which dealt with fairly adult themes like isolation and survival, a teenage chick-flick version that was Lovewrecked (which cheated because the island was really part resort), and now you have it – an island movie for kids. 

What I enjoyed most about the film was its Alex Rover subplot – played by Gerard Butler in a dual role, he is the source of Nim’s courage and bravery and the fictional hero created by agoraphobic author Alexandra Rover (Jodie Froster). He is also the tool and crutch of both in times of need. The only similarity in their otherwise opposite personality, it is believable that he should be the key to them braving the odds. A wholly family movie littered with bits of comedy and heartwarming scenes, Nim’s Island is well-worth the watch for those under the age of twelve.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Rendition

In the wake of 9/11, movies like United 93 and World Trade Centre have surfaced, some more like documentaries, others like…well, Hollywood films. Rendition feels like a dramatised action thriller that’s a product of the filmmakers’ decision to jump on the bandwagon. That doesn’t mean it’s bad; there’s nothing wrong with being opportunistic, but when you see Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep and Jake Gyllenhaal gracing the cover, it just feels like a Hollywood production hitching a ride on the controversy of terrorism.

Thankfully, Rendition is not about how planes are hijacked, or the collapse of the WTC. The word “(extraordinary) rendition” is in fact a law term whereby suspects are arrested and transported out of their countries without charges or trial and deprived of legal counsel. When Egyptian-born Anwar El-Ibrahimi is kidnapped by intelligence officers and accused of terrorist activities (apparently the guy had a call on his cell phone traced back to a terrorist), CIA analyst Douglas Freeman (Jake Gyllenhaal) must determine if he is really good at resisting various forms of torture, or just plain innocent. 

Of course there’s more to it than that, but that’s the gist of it. This is a film about terrorism where the main focus isn’t the terrorists, but how they are weeded out and captured. It’s a torture-one-man-to-save-others-but-at-the-same-time-make-more-enemies kind of movie, studded with morality lessons. And as much as terrorist attacks are gruesome, we also feel sorry for the innocent suspects who are tortured into giving information they don’t have – because how can you tell who is speaking the truth? Electrocute a real terrorist but he is trained to withstand the torture (or else it’s done out of loyalty). Electrocute an innocent man and he gives you false information so you’ll let him go. It’s messy all right, and Freeman is the instrument we are seeing this mess through. It made me wonder, what if a terrorist called me by mistake, dialed a wrong number, pressed the 6 instead of the 9? Rendition has to be the most cruel form of legal judgment – you’re tortured and defenseless.

Before we get all paranoid, though; this is Hollywood. Things turn out well (three guesses who’s the hero?). But you’d still probably spend the rest of the day wondering about those not so lucky, if Rendition is anything to go by on how terror suspects are forced into confessions. 

I’d say watch this. Even though the plot is instantly forgettable, the message (if you can call it a message) isn’t. Also, it probably would have made more of an impression if the cast hadn’t been so well-known and you aren’t distracted by the tiny voice going “that’s the guy from Brokeback Mountain”.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: The Forbidden Kingdom

The Forbidden Kingdom is like everyone’s dream come true of a kung-fu face off. Usually we tend to see only lopsided martial arts fights between two people, or say, a sidekick, or some villain played by an unknown person, but this – this is Jet Li and Jackie Chan, people! And for added effect and comic relief, we get to watch a white dude getting his ass kicked. It’s fists and sticks, so who cares about plot?

Now that isn’t to say the movie is a complete failure at storytelling. Forbidden Kingdom is somewhat based on the Chinese fairytale of Sun Wukong, or “Monkey God”. I say somewhat because the plot isn’t an adaptation of the novel, but more of a Sun Wukong story on its own. Meaning, the screenwriters borrowed the character’s traits, looks and powers, but gave him a different story to tell. It’s pretty simple – Monkey God gatecrashes the Heavenly party, impresses the Jade Emperor, Jade Warlord gets jealous, entombs Monkey God in stone, and a lucky guy gets to free Monkey God from his stone prison by passing him his lost magical weapon. Three guesses who’s the lucky dude?

No spoilers here, but if you look closely at the heavy make up, it’s pretty easy to find out the identity of Monkey God. Also not very different from many other martial arts movies is the weak romance between the white dude and the mysterious orphaned Asian chick. Can you see it? The formula? It’s as easy as baking. I also can’t help but wonder why every one of said mysterious beauties keep ending up with the same attack strategy – throwing knives. Well, in this case it’s throwing hairpins, but why do they keep throwing things? Aren’t they sick of it? It’s sleek, but it’s also old.

As a kung-fu flick, Forbidden Kingdom is entertaining, even fun, to watch. It’s also predictable and cheesy as hell, and gets super weird the moment the Chinese characters start speaking in English. It’s a fairytale, I know, but that doesn’t make the dialogue any easier to swallow. 

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Harold And Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay

Dissing any Harold & Kumar movie is practically like admitting you don’t have a sense of humour. I’d love to say I enjoyed the sequel as much as I did the first, but the truth is, you’re likely to be disappointed if you’ve watched the trailer for the second movie. Gone are the quick cuts and absolute coincidences – the second one brings to the table a lot more unnecessary nudity and out-of-the-blue randomness that aren’t nearly as funny as freaky coincidences. Yeap, there’s a difference.

It’ll be hard to give a detailed synopsis because much of what you’re going to laugh at stems from the unexpected and random sequences, but here’s the brief outline: Harold and Kumar are going on a trip to Amsterdam! And they get sidetracked! Again! This time though, it isn’t as simple as meeting Neil Patrick Harris or a couple of Extreme dudes, but a run in with the law. That’ll teach you to smuggle a bong (“bomb”, gettit?) on a plane. 

Like I said, you wouldn’t find the film as funny if you’ve watched the trailer, because the trailer pretty much consists of the funnier gags already. (It’s still quite funny though.) Plus, you need to watch the first film first, because events are linked and homage is paid to old jokes. You know, the things they like to do in sequels. Also, with a title like “Escape from Guantanamo Bay”, you’d think majority the movie will be about them trying to escape from jail, but the jail part is only about five minutes long, and the escape is really just thirty seconds. The rest of the film is spent following them all over the place as fugitives. 

I know the filmmakers are trying to be misleading with their titles, what with the first White Castle turning out to be a fast food chain (yes, I was one of those who fell for the “it’s a building made out of bricks” trick), but hey, at least that was relevant. A good portion of the movie was about them going on a journey looking for White Castle. But why name a movie “Escape from blah blah blah” when the escape barely lasts a total of about eight minutes?

The other thing about parodying terrorism is you’ve got to be careful how close you want to hit the bull’s forehead. Guantanamo Bay wastes no time in poking fun at real-life individuals like Osama bin Laden and George W. Bush, but I personally thought it would have been funnier if who they’re parodying remained nameless…meaning more of generic terms “terrorists” and “good-for-nothing presidents” than actual people. Osama is easy to imitate, what with his trademark beard hiding half his face, but then comes the problem of getting a George Bush lookalike. Now, wouldn’t that have been easier if they had parodied a generic president instead? (Of course this is to say they might need to remove the George Bush photograph joke in the trailer, or simply not have “Mr. Bush” himself walk in, but a second-in-command or someone else that could have saved them the trouble of casting a look-alike, making the movie less like a fancy dress Epic Movie.)

But that isn’t the major disappointment. No, the lovable brothers from another mother also get themselves actual relationships, which…wait, is this Harold & Kumar we’re watching and not some rom-com? What happened to the weed-loving, hamburger-hunting losers we liked so much in White Castle? This sequel may be a direct continuation from the first, but it feels like in the short span of time spent off-screen, the characters have somehow had personality scrub-downs, acting somewhat differently from their original selves. It’s just not the same anymore, and some of the charm has gone down the drain.

Or maybe we were just expecting too much.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Street Kings

Every once in a while, a cop film about corruption in the force is made. The last one that left an impact on me was The Departed. True, it was a remake, but it was a good remake. Street Kings is written by James Ellroy, the guy who brought you The Black Dahlia and L.A. Confidential. Add in a bit of Kurt Wimmer, the other screenplay writer who wrote The Recruit and Ultraviolet, and what you get is a diluted result. Street Kings just doesn’t fall in the same league as The Departed, both dialogue and action wise.

Keanu Reeves plays Detective Tom Ludlow, an LAPD cop weary after the death of his wife. That’s as far as his backstory goes, but it doesn’t matter! Someone, his ex-partner perhaps, is planning to snitch on him for being a loose cannon – shooting all the bad guys before they can be brought to trial – and planting evidence as proof of their villainy. While this seems like fighting bullets with bullets, Ludlow deserves to be hounded by his ex-partner for his habit of administering his own brand of justice. But not to worry, there’s Forest Whitaker to the rescue as police chief-to-be Captain Jack Wander! It’s messy all right, but if it weren’t, this wouldn’t star Keanu Reeves. 

Forest Whitaker reprises one of his favourite roles – a man of the force. For some weird reason though, perhaps to complement the crazy number of shootouts or to make himself heard, Whitaker’s performance is just as uncomfortably loud and strangely over-the-top as his other performances were subtle. Amongst all the noise, you can barely hear yourself think, and the film’s message is lost in its haphazard storytelling and chaotic execution. It’s not adrenaline-pumping, it’s annoying. 

Much of the film is also steeped in cop jargon, and the film automatically assumes that everyone in the audience is an action cop fan – to the point that you’re most of the time left five scenes behind, trying to work out whatever was said and by whom. You don’t care about the characters, or what become of them. There are even times where you don’t know who the good guy and the bad guy is, and unlike suspense thrillers that make you want to find out, this one just leaves you with an “oh, okay” instead of a “wow!”.

Yes, there were a few of the better one-liners and weird montages (I won’t reveal them because those were the only things keeping my mind from wandering and may also do the same for you), but not anything you can’t count on one hand. This is one for the Keanu Reeves fans, because he does strut around looking conventionally cool and saying a lot of cool ‘f*** you’s. Everything else is just pretentious fluff, which is a pity, because this movie could have been something had it not taken itself so seriously.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Sleuth

What filmmakers do with limited resources always intrigue me. Remember in Phone Booth when all Colin Farrell had to do was converse with an unseen caller inside…er, a phone booth? What about that time in Red Eye (or Snakes On A Plane, except I’m using Red Eye as an example because it was a much more decent film) when everything that happened happened on a plane? I’m not saying they were great films, but to command the attention of your viewers for the better part of an hour in a no less claustrophobic environment has to be a feat.

Sleuth - both the 1972 original and the 2007 remake – does this; staged entirely in the high-tech mansion of aging writer Andrew Wyke (Michael Caine), the drama that ensues between Milo Tindle (Jude Law) and said writer over a woman is comparable to what several action movies can ever hope to achieve. This is the kind of film that likes to give its audience a mind exercise, so if you’re waiting for the adrenaline-pumping gunfights as suggested by the film’s screenshots, you may want to rethink watching this.

Not only is the film shot entirely in the mansion – its plot is carried by two actors alone (and I really do mean two, there are no other people unless you count another guy on TV). That’s two characters, if you overlook the third – a mysterious woman we never get to meet and whom the two men are verbally (and sometimes physically) sparring over. As the film progresses, though, it becomes obvious that whoever that woman is, she becomes a tiny detail in a morphing picture of two men fighting over their pride and ego. I haven’t watched the 1972 version, but something tells me Caine is as impressive as Wykes now as he was as Tindle thirty-six years ago. Jude Law gives quite a splendid performance as Tindle and isn’t just a pretty face; you can’t help but like both characters and see them as equals. There’s no siding on this one.

This is a movie where phrases like “who gets the last laugh” and “turning the tables” come into play. The witty banter may be a turn off to some, and feels too curt and well-rehearsed at the beginning to be convincing as casual conversation, but ironically also the thing that makes this film the enjoyable ride it is. 

You probably won’t notice the subtler storytelling methods employed by director Kenneth Branagh. The bluish lighting suggests that it isn’t about physical dominance from the start – things are played coolly; there’s a certain quality about the close ups that scream indifference instead of the usual intimacy. Branagh reminds the audience of the role they’re playing as audience – you seldom see anything or anyone at eye-level, but as observers through several security camera feeds, or outrageously high up bird-eye-views. Even with the close-ups, you feel as if you’re watching through the vantage point of a microscope, trying to sift out chinks in the armour. Everything is a game, but is it really?

The only distraction – and this is only if you’re a Macintosh user – is how blatantly Wyke seems to be controlling the gadgets in his house with a remote that looks suspiciously like the one that came with my MacBook. It’s a trivial detail, but nevertheless a detail I found amusingly distracting. A credibility issue in what I would personally consider a top-grade non-action crime movie. (Really.)

Patrick Doyle also deserves a mention for the classical soundtrack to accompany this classical crime thriller. You’d want to forgive him for ever appearing on the crew list of Eragon.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Hannah Montana: Pop Star Profile

Pop Star Profile is really just a compilation of four episodes of the series, “The New Kid In School”, “More Than A Zombie To Me”, “Good Golly, Miss Dolly”, and “People Who Use People”. They centre on famous but obnoxious actor Jake Ryan (Cody Linley), or “Jesse McCartney clone” if you will, whom Miley is annoyed/jealous/attracted to.

There’s no better way to see these four episodes than The Steps Of Crushing Someone. You can literally count the episodes’ themes off your fingers, “Denial”, “Jealousy”, “Acceptance” and so forth. They’re regurgitated plot points, but entertaining to watch all the same. I feel a need to make a comparison with another celebrity feel-good movie, Bratz, which unlike Hannah Montana, gives everyone a lecture about friendship and loyalty and then reinforce this with fashion products. Cue “WTF” expressions.

Now it may just be my imagination to see Hannah Montana as satire, but it’s tough not to when Cody Linley acts the same way James Marsden did in Enchanted. The amount of exaggeration put into making the character look as obnoxious and self-loving as possible cannot be mistaken as the real deal – surely the movie doesn’t take itself seriously when its cast is helmed by such over-the-top characters. You just know from the stale punch line that Linley utters in each episode as the zombie slayer that he has to be parodying pretty-faced actors who cannot act to save their lives. So is Hannah’s disguise as Miley – the wig and sunglasses are props poking fun at comic book characters whom everybody fails to recognise as their respective superheroes. 

The plot following the four episodes are predictable as hell: Hannah hates new guy who unwittingly tempts her into revealing her alter-ego after he receives all the special treatment and she gets nothing; she falls in love with him after guest-starring in an episode of his TV series and having to share an on-screen kiss; they spite each other by leading a whole bunch of random extras on; the works. But being predictable doesn’t matter. I laughed more than I ever laughed for any other movie of the same premise (no fart jokes!). This isn’t just for the fans, it’s for those who expect cheesy performances and then walk away pleasantly surprised.

(First published at InCinemas)

Movie Review: Run Papa Run

As much as I tried to see Run Papa Run as a film about the power of love between a father and his daughter, I had huge difficulty getting past the film’s (possibly unintended) underlying hints at having responsible intercourse. Louis Koo stars in this Hong Kong drama as gang leader Lee, who falls for a lawyer named Mabel (Rene Liu). Fast and furious, he gets her pregnant, and the plot for Run Papa Run is born.

Remember movies like The Pacifier or The Gameplan where big, macho men were left to their own devices around a bunch of kids? The start of Lee’s parenthood is something like that, though more subtle and less aimed for laugh-out-loud reactions. You know there’s more - Run Papa Run doesn’t just want to be a comedy, it wants to be a lighthearted drama that isn’t too serious to be fun, and succeeds by having Koo play the tough-looking but obviously soft guy. In other words, newborn baby owns notorious gang leader. It’s the power of innocence, people.

Unlike the aforementioned movies that were mostly stuck during the kid’s stay with their macho caretakers, both Lee and his daughter grow up and old throughout the film, almost long enough to consider as a life cycle. Fortunately, the film did not cheat with the growth process by using fades – we see his daughter at various ages played by different actresses (convincing), and the graying hairs on Lee (unconvincing). 

Then comes the teenage angst. Typically lending a fair bit of drama and conflict to the film, what surprised me was how Lee’s daughter turned out (for a girl I was expecting one of those dainty cry-babies you can find on any Korean dramas). With parents from both sides of the law and the wide legal range in between, she becomes a hybrid of both, choosing to break a few rules in pursuit of justice, or what you and I would term “fighting fire with fire”. Why am I making a big deal of this? Because this is a movie where the gang leader spends more time playing with his daughter than outside with his gang beating up other gangs, and his daughter starts fights instead of being the cause of them. And not in the action heroine, it’s-time-for-some-John-Woo-choreographed-fight-sequences way either.

Run Papa Run isn’t essentially a family movie, but it has all the subtle morals and values of one, presented in a less-fantastical, more realistic fashion, which I always find more honest. It’s a film to watch and enjoy, though it’s not great enough to make you want to watch again or remember for longer than a couple of months.

(First published at InCinemas)