A Good Day to Die Hard (John Moore, 2013)

Bruce Willis, I first came to know him since the TV series era, Moonlighting (from year 1985 to 1989), the non stop bickering between him and Cybill Shepherd, the wonderful chemistry from the odd couple. This Moonlighting Theme Song reminds me of used to glue to the show regularly on channel TV3 on 11:30pm (or is it 12:30 midnight?). Saying that kind giving away my age. I am not that old, mind you.

The previous Die Hard movies are always about the right man at the wrong place and wrong time. The reluctant hero is always forced to take matters into his own hands in a confined location with race against the clock. Bruce Willis reprised his role as New York City police detective John McClane for the fifth time.This time, His NYPD badge means nothing when he goes to Moscow looking for his now grown up son Jack (Jai Courtney did not annoy me with his performance here), who was imprisoned for an assassination incident. The problem escalates when a high rank ex-Russia government officer executes a sinister plan to smuggle nuclear weapon (whole lots of uranium based canisters) for reason that I did not fully aware (sorry I must have blank stare moment during the scene they mentioned it). Obviously the father and son team up to stop them.

 No brainer to say it is always a tough act to follow the first Die Hard, I mean this was the movie which re-invented the action genre back in late 80s. Those days, it was a timely antidote to the invulnerable action movie protagonists such as Arnold, Stallone, Van Damme, Norris who so used to blast off their enemies without making much sweat. Two decades later you still find the concept of "Die Hard on a...... (fill in the blank: train, stadium, boat, bus, plane etc). Die Hard 2 and 3 did not embarrassed their predecessor. When it comes to the forth one - Live Free or Die Hard, you start to feel hmmm..... this is really stretching the point of being a proper Die Hard movie.

Let me tell you what is wrong is AGDtDH: The plot and John McClane. I did not have the EXCITEMENT of watching a Die Hard movie. What happen to the wise cracking everyman hero that I used to know? McClane mocked the villains delivering witty lines, and oh who can forget his smirk! I dare you not to cringe at some poor dialogue, "You know what I hate about the Americans? Everything!", the carrot chewing villain scorned, the said villain with his superior have about one tenth of Hans Gruber on Flamboyant Metre scale. The same villain's SWAT-like team possess one tenth of Simon Gruber's IQ, They line up and are shot down one after one like a sack of spud. I was expecting to see the vulnerable McClane, but what I get here is him doing some superhero stunt with his son. And the indisputable proof of how much Die Hard's writing had fall from grace is the repetition of "I am on vacation", McClane quipped four times through out the movie, as if the screewriter wants to coin another immortal catchphrase from "Yippee ki yay, motherf**ker". The "I am on vacation" line is totally corny and out of place.

Bruce Willis looks bored and tired. (Read: not acts to look tired, but Bruce seems not really bother to be in McClane role). The only saving grace is the high tempo cars chase scene at near beginning of the movie, where McClane Sr hijack a Mercedes Unimog SUV in pursuit of an armoured tank like vehicle which in turn on the trail of McClane Jr. Overall It is only a half-ass effort from the movie studio to cash in the diminishing Die Hard brand, in other words, a stripped-down sequel nothing more than a poor attempt made to appeal to younger audience.

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

Bait (Kimble Rendall, 2012)

The idea of making a movie about killer shark munching on hapless people has been done to death, I really mean it. Here, BAIT is a colloboration of Australian/Singaporean produced movie about shark attack, and I have to admit it has quite an interesting but sort of are-you-kidding-me concept: a freak tsunami strikes a small costal town of Australia, floods a supermarket while the survivors takes shelter inside. They are trapped in it no thanks to part of building structure collapse and blocks the entrance. Just as the survivors thought the situation could not be worse, beneath the flooded water is great white shark's new hunting ground . . . . . .

For the wrong reason, the prologue scared the hell out of me. It freaked me out not because
of how scary the shark attack sequence was, but I shuddered by the sight of very shoddy CGI effect of the shark (maybe due to the fact that I was not watching in 3D version). At that moment I thought I was surely in for a dreadful "so bad it is good" movie. But, the movie turn out marginally better as it progressed.

Visually, BAIT has enough suspense and bloody moments to to satisfy killer creature movie goers. The stranded people trapped at the top of the supermarket shelves while the shark is patrolling the submerged aisle, seeking for cgance to pick them one by one. In other words, it lets movie maker to show the gory images of mutilated human body. Giving how the seemingly huge appetite shark keep coming back for human snack after devouring some, I was a bit suprise by the rather smaller sharks portrayed in the movie compare to those other movies usual godzilla size. The portrayal of shark is a combination of the old school animatronic (yay!) and CGI (duhhh....can a great white shark swim that fast?) ) mainly for underwater sequence.

So, who are those potential shark meal? sorry i mean who are the survivors? They are cookie cutter characters are straight out from a typical disaster surviving theme movie. It has a timid character, a quiet but brave one, an annoyingly hysterical one, a few criminals, a cop, cop's daughter....the list goes on and I guess you get the idea, and oh do not forget the ultimate young and good looking hero with death immunity. I also think that I saw Julian McMahon, the only one actor I recognised as one of the robber. My favourite characters are the young couple who trapped inside a car at the basement car park level as they just argue about everything despite shark is frantically trying to take a good bite on them. 

BAIT does not help by its amateurish acting level all around. It is a major letdown. It does not matter if this is a low budget movie or a film student experiment movie, acting is the first and foremost the important aspect in a make or break for a movie. All in all, lower your expectation and you may like it, at least it does not has a full assault on my IQ which happens in a lot of the B-horror movies. Better to watch BAIT rather than Shark Night (David R. Ellis, 2012).

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Taken 2 (Olivier Megaton, 2012)

Previously I have gone for the original sleeper hit, as such, it is easy as pie to review a this lazily-titled sequel (come on, Taken 2? I can come out with better title, how about Taken Again? or Taken 2: Wrong Place At the Wrong Time?). The similarities are all over the place. It has almost the same behind-the-scene crews where Luc Bessons produced it and wrote it with Robert Mark Kamen; same casts (father/husband, estrangled mother/wife, teenage daugther); the action still takes place at foreign soil, this time change from Paris to the hustle and bustle streets of Istanbul; and above all the same storyline (father comes to the rescue when his family is abducted by the Albanian hit-men)

The no nonsense Liam Nesson as Bryan Mills is back to kick some sorry asses. There is nothing to be said that has not been said before, but here I am rambling: Liam is the main reason I watched this rehash. He excelled in this role just as he did in the first movie. He is still the over-protective father of his daughter, and will use deadly force to paralyze any brutal threat, though when it comes having a relationship with his family, this is the same guy struggle to get along with his family.

The movie retains the grittiness of the hand to hand combat. Jackie Chan' fighting cheoreography, this is not. However the shaky camera work coupled with quick cuts during the fist fight gave my poor eyes a hard time to see whose limbs are punching whose bodies. The minor trouble with Taken 2 is some of plots' plausibleness plunges to a lower depth compare to the predecessor. You know that the suspension of disbelief is the viewing pre-requisite, but the requirement is wearing thin by now and could well be snapped in the inevitable Taken 3 (another unimaginative title?) judging from the current rate.

Sorry to say the law of diminishing quality returns appear in this sequel. But I suppose it will not matter much, a 90 minutes fast paced, heart pounding action thriller is akin to a quick fast food meal. In the end, if you are still wondering why you need to watch the rehash of Taken Mk. 1, take this as comfort: Liam Neeson will not carry the action movie role forever as he is in his 60s now. I wish he still got the extra oomph to act in action movie as he looks more believable as a ex-CIA agent compare with Steven Seagal as ex-Navy SEAL posed as a chef.

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 Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2012)

Christopher Nolan does not make simple movie anymore, does he? I was emotionally exhausted right from the start to finish in this captivating 2 hours and 45 minutes of viewing, I barely have time to digest the richness of its storytelling and it lingered in my mind long after experienced it.

The Dark Knight Rises (TDKR) is a fitting epic ending to the most compelling, ambitious superhero movie trilogy ever. In term of audaciousness, the closest I can think of is another DC Comics, Watchmen (Snyder, 2009), without a doubt you are looking at the pinnacle of superhero comic movie adaptation in these two. Both have equal brooding style, Watchmen has a superior narrative style because it is benefitted from a direct existing material while Nolan's Batman trilogy punches pure entertainment with accessibility to both general audience and comic geeks.

By the 3rd part of trilogy, gone are the days of the main characters' introduction, where we are straight to the engrossing pay off time.Batman's vehicle evolved from Tumbler who looks like tank to a two-wheels Batpod to The Bat that fly with ease (yes, Lucius Fox confirms that it comes in black colour). The story sets 8 years after the event of The Dark Knight where Bruce Wayne went into long hiatus. The newcomer Anne Hathaway plays the role of Catwoman. Under normal circumstances, she and Catwoman do not belongs to the same bracket, but somehow she pull it off with the seductive performance coupled with the touch of insecurity from her. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays as a closed aide to Commisioner Gordon. Meanwhile, Marion Cottillard is an important figure in Wayne Enterprise.

The main villain, Bane is played by Tom Hardy where his presence on the screen is downright menacing. He is physically tough and hulky. He may not be as intimidating as Joker, but somehow I fear for anyone who is near to him because he seems like he would snap the neck of the person standing next be it his henchmen or enemy. I really felt for Batman during one of the brutal knuckle fight with Bane. He absolutely gives Batman a painful thumping. On the grand scale, he masterminded a sinister plan for the downfall of Gotham City. He strikes the people of Gotham with fear, he actually gives the Gotham citizens some faint hope before striking it down with furious vengeance, all before the eyes of a helpless Bruce Wayne. Given the fleshed out background story, it is obvious Bane is the most complex villain in TDK trilogy.

I am pleased that we are now at the second decade of the golden age of superhero comic movie adaptation where there are plenty of choices we are spoilt of. The sky is the limit as far as CGI is concern, nowadays no matter how transcendent the comic is, the cinema medium just easily lift the concept from the comic book panels. While Joss Whedon's The Avengers is fun, loud, a kind of borderline juvenile stuff, TDKR on the other hand is a serious, realistic, brooding, gothic feel drama. It stings to say this because I am a huge follower of Joss. Let me reiterate that The Dark Knight Rises is an epitome to action-orientated movie; not just limit to superhero comic adaptation genre. Whoever wants to remake a movie about Batman after Christopher Nolan, I wish him/her best of luck.

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 Amazing Spider-Man (Marc Webb, 2012)

With new reboot comes great expectation.

Amazing? More like The Immature Spider-Man to me. Wait, do not get me wrong, it is not a slander remark by any stretch of mean, I was trying to point out that it is basically a re-telling of our beloved Peter Parker's teenage life, how he cope with the death of his Uncle Ben and more importantly how he dealt with the newfound arachnoid power.

Years ago, the Sony Pictures announcement of the new Spider-Man reboot had us crying out "What? Reboot again? It was too soon for that!" In fact, it has been only 10 years since Sam Raimi's own version of Spider-Man movie, which lead to 2 more sequels completing a satisfying trilogy. Instead of continue with Part Four, Sony Pictures chose to revamp the whole franchise by starting all over again. Which bring us The Amazing Spider-Man (TAS-M) helmed by the relatively newcomer Marc Webb. He has so far brought us the indie (500) Days of Summer (2009) which I am impressed by the quirkiness of it.


I have great time in Raimi's sunny, glittering Spider-Man trilogy. Cinematically, he introduced one of the most iconic Marvel's superhero character to non-comic Spidey fan like me and the story of the web shooter too won the heart of many comic fans. My write-up here is probably has to do with a lot of comparison between Raimi's original Spider-Man and the latest instalment. This time, Instead of shooting the web from his wrist, Spider-Man invented the mechanical web shooter just like in the comic. There is no Mary Jane Watson character as Peter's love interest, replaced by Gwen Stacy which is akin to the comic timeline. We will also find out more about Peter's parents. Then, there are no appearances of Osborne members although their organization Oscorp formed the backdrop of the plot. Dr Curt Connor is the villain better known as Lizard as his alter ego. He is the leading research scientist in Oscorp on the verge of biotechnology breakthrough based on reptiles' DNA in regenerating new human tissue for amputated limb like himself. What I missed most from 2002 version is JK Simmons as the wacky chief editor of Daily Bugle.




Rhys Ifans as Dr Curt Connor AKA Lizard

Another significant difference with this latest TAS-M is the overall darker and grittier tone.  I noticed Uncle Ben's demise here has somehow less impact on Peter's anguish motivation. The loss of his uncle should be the incident inspiring him to use his unique ability to fight the crime. Compare to Tobey Maguire, does Andrew Garfield look a tad to pretty to be a nerdy Peter Parker? If you look past that, his flourishing romance scene with the Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is chemistry spot on.

We are reminded on numerous occasions that the wall crawler is actually no more than a geeky Peter Parker in suit; I find it hilariously genuine when he is in full spandex suit, he still carry backpack; he received calls from Aunt May asking him to buy organic eggs, he played with his cellphone while waiting for The Lizard.... his actions evidently showing he was merely an orphaned teenager who discover his newfound superpower, Wolverine he is not. Whenever the gravity defying masked crimefighter in full swing action, the fair share of it happen during glitering night of New York City. Again, bridge is used as location to one of the action scene.

The most common argument against the reboot Amazing Spider-Man is: It does not bring anything new to the table; it is a blatant, soulless money grabber. But then after the cold reception of Spider-Man 3 (2007), the continuation of Sam Raimi's part 4 may seems like heading towards nothing short of wearing itself out. After watching the latest instalment, I felt I do not have to bash the previous version to like the current TAS-M, they are both worthy in their own way in adapting the story of web swinger from the comic. TAS-M is a refreshing approach to explore the origin of Spider-Man, and that is certainly NOT the backhanded compliment I gave.






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

In Time (Andrew Niccol, 2011)

Time is money, we all know the quote. Andrew Niccol acknowledged the concept by visually paraphrase it. How about "people buy time to cheat death"?

Imagine our world in the future where Time replace Money as the currency, human's DNA is genetically engineered, allow every human born and age like normal until 25 years old, that is where you stop aging, yes you read it right, stop aging, physically remain forever at 25 years old, well if you can. The catch is, you are given only another year to live after 25 years old and you have to earn a living (more like survival). The glowing countdown timer embedded at the forearm always reminds you how much time you have to live. Meaning you must work to make sure your timer do not run down to a series of zero numbers, which is equal to an instant death.

Ghetto is the place where the hardcore poor people live and earn their living day to day, their life expectancy is often left with days if not hours. Worker wages are paid in the currency of Time, people buy a cup of coffee of 4 minutes, a bus trip for 2 hours et cetera. While the poors are constantly facing the burden of currency inflation, life, however is lavishly rich on the other side, at a place called New Greenwich where people there can live for centuries without going through menopause. "Time zones" were created to keep wealthy folks from the poors because it cost an exorbitant fee to cross the border. Our blue-collar hero Justin Timberlake gets into trouble by involving in a murder crime, he goes on a run, trespass into New Greenwich and kidnap The Powerpuff Girl, I mean Amanda Seyfried, who played the billionaire's daughter. Both of them go on the run while the Timekeeper, a law enforcer (Cillian Murphy) is on their heel.

Himself a regular writer and director, Andrew Niccol's cine world is often relate to someone who tries to overcome an established (sometimes an unfair) system, Gattaca (1997) to me, will always be the pinnacle of his career, an exquisite work of inspiring art. The dystopian setting of In Time has a lot in common with Gattaca, both are based on a thought provoking idea eventhough the lacklustre storytelling of the former did not back up the far fetch premise. It has the usual car / on foot chase and be chased action, still I find myself a tad difficult to soak up the whole mumbo jumbo issue of human can live forever as long as the timer on their forearm is ticking. Well, call me a prejudice jerk, in movies, i accept people travel faster than light, heck i love Back to The Future series to death with its time travel stuff, but I cannot give the nod to anything that is related to EVERLASTING LIFE. Hence here it is, my cold shoulder towards the on screen lovely pair that I am suppose to care.

This movie only skim off the surface, where there are many repercussion in a society where the people are not going to age a bit after hitting quater of a century. Niccol need a team of experts (read: futurists) to cook up the plausible scenarios for In Time to be based on, not with this juvenile attempt. OK, before somebody undermine my understanding in this movie, let me say i got it, I am aware of the relevant social commentary, the inequity between the rich and the poor with the crooked corporate capitalism undertone. Though I love the overall look of the movie which to me is aesthetically elegance, it has a retro feel to it, with all the budget constrain, Niccol aptly created the retrospective future background, the tech noir-ish cars and architecture. Oh how I wish In time can rival Gattaca and The Truman Show (1998) that deeply evoked my emotion towards the triumph of the human spirit. 

I almost forgot to mention this: Forget the naysayer, once again it proves Justin Timberlake CAN act.







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

Prometheus (Ridley Scott, 2012)

First thing first, let's lay the fact, Prometheus is a spin-off from Alien (Ridley Scott, 1979), a loose prequel if you insist. It is set in LV-223, a different moon LV-426 in Alien and Aliens (James Cameron, 1986)); a different derelict alien spacecraft; a different Space Jockey, but here they called it Engineer, in Alien (1979), it was a much bigger size and last but certainly not least, a different efficiency of director Ridley Scott. He returned to sci-fi  territory after lengthy absence from his influential haunted-house-in-space Alien.

Every time I re-watch Alien (1979), I always wonder what is all about with the fossilized creature with the elephant head, sitting eerily at a crashed cockpit spacecraft. Certainly I am not the only one who is curious about it. Well, the director Scott answered our query at last by expanding the back story of the Space Jockey in moon LV-426. Prometheus is set decades before the incident where Ripley and crews first discovered the fossilized spacecraft pilot. A deep space expedition funded by Weyland Corporation (later as Weyland-Yutani Corp in Alien movie series) set out looking for answers of who created human in the beginning and what is our purpose on earth. Darwinism, this is not.



















An Alien movie will not be without a strong female protagonist, Noomi Rapace fits the bill as one of the archeologist in expedition. Sadly, she is no Ellen Ripley, period. Even more so for an Alien movie will not be without a human-like android on board. As usual the one thing we need to find out is whose side he is allied to. Michael Fassbender really excelled to bring his android character to, should I say, to "life"? He is almost a child-like inquisitive machine, more human than another human on board, a calculative, icy Weyland Corporation representative played by Charlize Theron. 

Prometheus belongs to that type of flick which does not offer answers in many questions it poses. The plot holds back way too much without resolving many mysteries it put forth, perhaps it want to saves for subsequent sequels until it tie nicely to the original Alien movie, I do not know. But one thing I am sure is, I am not keen on watching something that requires me to make huge assumption about a lot of things, and that, is a MAJOR problem. Great movies sometimes leave space for viewers to interprete themself and I have no qualm accepting a little notion called narrative ambiguity. To make things worse as the plot thicken, the movie suffers from a absurd script to have narration move onward, the logic stretches beyond salvage, if not, how do you explain a pivotal moment in this movie where immediately after a Ceasarean section was performed, the character went up and running as if the wound is an insect bite?

If I knew Ridley Scott and co have made such a banal attempt of elaborating the back story of Space Jockey, I would rather have it remain mysterious fossilized. Basically, the sky is the limit for them to kickstart a new direction yet still set within the same Alien to Alien Resurrection (Jeunet, 1997) universe that we all familiar with. No Egg, no Facehugger, no Xenomorph, No Alien Queen, I am OK with none of that, perhaps some minor references to the Alien series here and there will be delightful for the buffs. What is in my mind now is, If the tagline of Weyland Corporation is "Building Better Worlds", perhaps Prometheus means "posing more questions" to us.

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