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