The Wrestler (Darren Aronofsky, 2008)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

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

4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended

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

Devil (John Erick Dowdle, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

1 star = Pathetic, SowYau feel ashamed of watching it

2 stars = Off the mark material, approach with caution

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

4 stars = excellent, strongly recommended

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

The Expendables (Sylvester Stallone, 2010)

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

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

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

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

Michael Bay, come back please, all is forgiven.

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

Salt (Phillip Noyce, 2010)

As they said, art imitates life; the recent news about the capture of Russian spy - Anna Chapman and her comrades in United States eerily echoes the Angelina Jolie starring spy thriller Salt. It was Tom Cruise who is supposed to play the lead title at one time but dropped out because it would be too similar to his well known special agent character Ethan Hunt of Mission: Impossible franchise. The script was subsequently altered for Salt to undergo gender change.

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

Who is Salt? That is the tagline flash across the teaser movie poster with Angelina's face. Bundle with the curious trailers, the movie marketing campaign would love to make sure the gullibility in us will search for the answer. From the opening, Salt is rescued from the detention of North Korea. A few years later and happily married to a mild-mannered arachnologist (scientist who study spiders), she seems to work for an oil & gas company. Below the horizon she is a CIA agent, more like an office desk job rather than a field agent. One fine day, a self-claimed Russian spy walks into CIA Centre and declares his defection to US government. He also goes as far as claiming there will be a Russian spy by the name of Evelyn Salt, who will attempt to kill the visiting Russia president soon and kickstart the "Day X", an operation cultivated by the former Soviet Union's KGB officer to overthrow US government.

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

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

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

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

Inception (Christopher Nolan, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Predators (Nimród Antal, 2010)

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

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


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

Toy Story 3 (Lee Unkrich, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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



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

A Nightmare on Elm Street (Samuel Bayer, 2010)

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


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

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

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


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


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

Iron Man 2 (Jon Favreau, 2010)

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

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

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

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

1) Bigger production budget
2) Larger casts

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

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

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

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

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

The Wolfman (Joe Johnston, 2010)

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

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

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

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

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

Legion (Scott Stewart, 2010)

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


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


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

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



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

Paranormal Activity (Oren Peli, 2007)

By now most of us have heard of what Paranormal Activity is all about. The much hyped up flick has become one of the cultural cinematic event of the year, thanks to the emphatic viral marketing and explosive word of mouth campaign. The essentially haunted house movie was wholly shot in amateur-ish home video style but minus the extreme shaky cam of Cloverfield (Matt Reeves, 2008). It tells the story of a young suburban couple, Katie (Micah Sloat) and Katie (Katie Featherston) moved in to a new house. Katie claimed she was by spirit since she was young. By using night vision ability video camera mounting on a tripod, the tech savvy Micah wanted to capture any supernatural incident while they are sleeping. Their pursuit begins to go out of hand as the invisible force makes its presence known to both of them.

This movie is similar vein to The Blair Witch Project (D.Myrick, E.Sánchez; 1999) in every possible way. However Paranormal Activity triumphs due to one important reason: The moment you have know the whole BWP shebang is nothing but a pseudo "found footage" celluloid, the scary-meter drops drastically. No, not this time, despite the fact without recognized actors and on a shoestring budget, the first time director/writer Oren Peli expertly orchestrate the unnerving atmosphere, turning the every day’s mundane stuffs such as door swinging, shadows, the sounds of footsteps, light switching on and off randomly that creep me out. The old school’s rule of fear for the unknown works well here.


Oren shuffled the plot between daytime mostly talkie sequences and night time terrorizing sequences, and the tension slowly built up as each night passed by. For me, it is a damn-if-it-does, damn-if-it-doesn't kind of situation during the nocturnal setpieces. Every time the video clip fast forwarding (clock indicated at bottom right) while one of the characters stood and stared motionless over the other character for an umpteenth period of time sent shiver down my spine. On the other scenario when the video clip was played at normal speed, I was dire to watch the screen as well, afraid of noticing any bit of movement. It just goes to show that you don't need gore and unnecessary violence to freak people out.


Unlike normal circumstances, you do not solely judge this kind of movie from the aspect of polished narrative structures and neat production design because it is meant to be an faux-improvised material. It is how much the impact from the movie provides that count. Paranormal Activity should soar to higher recognition if it was not letdown by the lead characters' repetitive monotonous dialogues during the daytime sequences. Having said that, it actually did serve a purpose being a boring but authentic homemade video.

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