The Karate Kid (2010)

"Jacket on, Jacket off"

To me, this Karate Kid film is one very beautiful piece of artwork. The cast and the people behind the movie has given their best of their abilities. The writer of the story delivered us an amazing, dramatic and inspirational story, the fight choreographers (including Jackie Chan) delivered us plenty of amazing Kung Fu, the cinematographers and principal photographers captured a lot of scenes beautifully and I applaud the actors and actresses, especially the young ones and their first time in acting, they really did put in a lot of effort and their best in their abilities to fleshed out their characters and their role in the film. I am also very impressed at the scale of the movie, as well as the decision to go on location in Beijing to shoot the film.

This is so much more awesome Jedi training!

You can tell that Will Smith has really trained his son, Jaden Smith in the art of acting. Jaden Smith gave an amazing performance as Dre Parker, and I am most impressed with his effort in learning and training in Kung Fu. There was just so much that is required of this 12 year boy, and he delivered it all. Jackie Chan also gave an amazing performance as Mr Han, Dre's mentor. This is unlike his previous American movies, where he doesn't really need to act with his superficial characters but to only deliver crazy and insane stunts and fights. But delivering amazing fights and stunt is his art, especially with adding a comedic flavor to it and we see that only in a scene where he took down Dre's bullies but otherwise his skill is not in the limelight this time but the character he brings out. I absolutely love his chemistry with Jaden Smith as the mentor-student relationship and the emotion and depth he brought into his character, being a man who lost his family in a tragic car accident. His portrayal as Mr Han proved Jackie is more than just a martial artist or a stuntman but also an amazing actor. I'm also very impressed with Wen Wen Han's performance who played Meiying. Her skill with the violin got the limelight and I enjoyed the scenes with her and Jaden together, which was not only sweet but the friendship and relationship they had, I felt really added to the depth of their characters, especially for Jaden's Dre Parker. I really praise her acting skills for a first timer in such a big film and alongside with veteran actors, and I'm going to give her the credit with all the grueling violin practice she has to go through in preparation for the role (not as grueling as Jaden's Kung Fu training).

One of the most beautifully shot scene that I absolutely love, especially the silhouette shots

I'm more impressed with these young acting newbie, Han and Jaden's chemistry than I did with a much older, more veteran actor, Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman in Star Wars.

I'm unhappy at some people's negative feelings and reviews about the film as well as the upset over the supposedly misleading title. I really did enjoy and love the film. This is definitely one of the most satisfying film I've ever came out watching in the cinema. I was already amazed from the trailer, and I was blown away while watching the movie. To me, this is definitely a kind of film that Hollywood has lost touch in making. True, it is based on the original Karate Kid, borrowing elements and the formula. It is after all, a "Karate Kid" movie, but remember too, this is not a movie about a kid learning Karate (The movie made that very clear). The movie paid many homages to the original and elements that we loved, and yet introduced something new and fresh. Overall, I give this beautifully made film a 10 out of 10 CD's of Dre's downloaded "Non-Bach" violin music into a CD for Meiying.

Jackie Chan doing the Matrix

Comment below, who do you want Dre Parker to fight with in a future sequel? I don't know how they would do it but I'm rooting for Ralph Maccio's Daniel LaRusso to take on Dre Parker.

The A-Team (2010)

I'm definitely not one of those guys who grew up watching the original A-Team. The only thing I know about the A-Team is that Mr T starred in it. But that's really about it. From watching the trailers, I would expect it to be your typical team of commando story with tons of action and comedy. It was only the day before watching the movie that I began to look up on YouTube about clips and information of the original A-Team, you know, just to get an idea how the original conception was like, then maybe I can appreciate this new remake better. I have to admit the original one was definitely a retro-classic piece, especially with their theme music and having the iconic Mr T. I really have no idea how the filmmakers would redeliver the A-Team in today's generation. I had a very, very low expectation of this remake, especially since we've already been treated with movies like Charlie Angels, G.I Joe and The Losers which all of these movies weren't good at all. So, I expected A-Team to be just another addition to it. Boy, was I wrong. The team behind this movie definitely had a plan.

"I love it when a plan comes together."

There was really nothing new to the story this movie is trying to tell. A matter of fact, the plot lines may have been use several times in the past, especially in the recent movie release "The Losers" which also focus on group of elite soldiers who were frame for a crime they did not commit. So, there was really nothing surprising or fresh about it. But it wasn't so much on the story but the characters themselves. Who cares about the money plate or who exactly the bad guy is? The character's personality, charisma, interaction and chemistry, watching them work together and teaming up to bring a plan to fruition stole the spotlight. That was the trademark of the A-Team. To me, that was gold! The special effects, as much as the film had used, didn't quite steal the spotlight either, although I got a feeling the filmmakers intended for the visual effects to blow the audience away. But let movies for visual effects be for visual effects, and action comedy stay true to action comedy. In this movie however, there's were plenty of CG effects that I felt was overuse, which I really think they shouldn't be too flashy with it. But that said, there were some effects used to really boost the action, the tension and the comedy of the scene. For example, the helicopter chase was awesome and really delivered the punch during the opening scene. The scene with Face using the machine gun on the parachuted tank was overly cliché. Still, the most beloved and iconic scene to me, didn't really need that any special effects. It was the "3D" scene when the team rescued Murdock from the military psychiatric hospital. Coupled with the original A-Team theme, that was epic!

I've seen a dragonfly, I've seen a housefly, I've even seen an elephant fly but now you see a Tank fly!

Among the original A-Team, I really felt that B.A Baracus stole the limelight. Not only was his Mohawk was so prominent, but his baddie attitude and the lines he said that only Mr T can deliver really made the character. It also added flavour to the other characters around him when they interact with him. But it was definitely Mr T's B.A Baracus that really made the A-Team an A-listed team and TV show. But in this movie however, I really felt Liam Nesson's Hannibal was the one who stole the limelight. Because of my low expectation of this film initially, I really wondered how a serious heavyweight actor from Hollywood like Liam Nesson could end up in this film. But after watching his Hannibal, Liam's performance was brilliant (as usual). From his smirks, him pumping the cigars all the way to his "Aslan" voice delivering some quirky lines, he carved John "Hannibal" Smith to perfection. That said, however, I really do need to pick up the original TV show to compare Liam's Hannibal to George Peppard's Hannibal.

Perhaps the next greatest Hannibal in Hollywood since Hannibal Lecter

The next A-Team member I want to talk about is B.A Baracus. Seeing B.A in this movie really made you miss Mr T. You probably had the same feeling, as I did, that the A-Team isn't going to work because this movie lacked Mr T, and the filmmakers are trying to replace him. I was very wrong. The filmmakers were doing their best to bring back the character, not the actor, and I'm very impressed with Quinton Jackson's B.A. As much as Mr T's look and personality made up B.A's, Quinton Jackson and the filmmakers paid homage to Mr T's character indirectly through his Mohawk and the spirit of the character, especially in delivering every line that B.A speaks except for the ones that Mr T is popular for. So, there weren't much "fool"-ing or "jibber-jabber"-ing. Matter of fact, Mr T's trademark line "I pity the fool" were inscribed in Quinton's B.A's fists; "PITY" and "FOOL". If that didn't make you hear Mr T's voice in your head when reading B.A's fist, I don't know what will. Other than that, you've got the whole package of B.A including his Bad attitude, his fear of flying and being knocked out unconscious before being put on to anything that flies.

He need Snickers.

The next guy you gotta love is H.M "Howling Mad" Murdock. He is definitely one of the most interesting characters I've seen in movies. When you get a team of commandos, you would normally get a Tech-guy, a Sniper-guy, a Bomber-man, a Pilot, an engineer or even a Ninja. Here, you get a pilot. But what makes this pilot so different from any previous incarnation of "specialized commando team member" is that he's crazy, insane and not just ordinarily crazy or insane, but extraordinarily insane. Never mind if he tried to jump start an ambulance with defibrillator or barbecue meat with gunpowder. What really stuck to me was the scene when he hanged on the helicopter blades to test the condition of the helicopter. That really defined the character to me. I absolutely love his scene at the military mental hospital when he puts on the 3D movie he got from 'Annabelle' Smith. The chemistry between Murdock with B.A was brilliant! I just love the scenes they were in together, every conversation, every look on their face, they were hilarious! Sharlto Copley really delivered an amazing performance.

Feels like he's wearing that for a pilot episode. Pilot, get it?!... Nevermind

Ok, perhaps the least favourite member of the team to me is Templeton "Face" Peck. I really don't know anything about the original Face in the TV series. I really felt there wasn't much to his character except for being good looking for the ladies, and being a womanizer, kinda like the A-Team's Johny Bravo. I find the only reason, for this movie, for him to be in the A-Team is to introduce and work with Jessica Biel's character. Apart from the opening scene when he comes rolling down in a row of tyres and the closing scene when the team was arrest and put into the van, there really wasn't much else to flesh out his character. The scene when he gets all romantic with Jessica Biel's character or the scene with him blazing the machine gun on the floating tank was really nothing special or iconic. I don't know how the character fare in the TV show, but I really hope Dirk Benedict's Face is much better than Bradley Cooper's one. Still, I give him credit for taking the lead in strategizing the plan in capturing Pike.

No wonder he's called Face

As for Jessica Biel's Captain Charisa Sosa, she's just as important as the money plaits, the CIA dude called Lynch and the antagonist Pike. She only served the purpose of driving the story forward and giving Face a storyline. There weren't any depth to her character and I really think the writers should have developed a better leading lady character for Jessica Biel. Perhaps, the only time I did like her character was when she kissed Face towards the end of the film. And to avoid any spoilers, I thought that was pretty smart with what she did. Expected, but smart. I give her credit for that and that only.

Does this remind you of Lt Kara Wade from Stealth?

Like the original TV show, over the top action was every where and almost throughout the film. I understand that some people found it as a noisy film. But I loved it! I mean that's what I paid my money for! To watch action comedy from an action comedy film. There were moments when the characters got to relax, chit chat and serious moments to put down the foundations for the story and to introduce their mission. They weren't long at all and you didn't need to wait long before the A-Team carries out their plan. That's a good thing... I really wanted to see the A-Team in action. So, I couldn't care about the money plates or the romance between Face and Sosa. If I wanted to watch a conspiracy war film, I'll watch Green Zone. If I wanted to watch a romantic film, I'll go watch Titanic.

"I pity the fool"

After watching this film, I'm pretty much turned into an A-Team fan. I've got now the "A-theme" in my phone and I'm desperately trying to get my hands on the original series. It makes me wonder if there will be a sequel planned for the future, or perhaps a new TV series. Remember there was an "8 years and 80 successful missions later" between the time of the opening scene and before they got their mission surrounding the money plates. I can already imagine a TV series being made during that time line with the A-Team carrying out their missions given by General Morrison. That would be amazing! Overall, I give an 8 out 10 Black GMC Vandura Vans.

 The A-Team Mobile!

So, if you have a problem, if no one else can help, if you can find them, maybe you can hire... The A-Team. Jibber-jabber in the comments below, what would be the darnest thing you would have them do?

Yea.. Retro Goodness!

Iron Man 2 (2010)

It's finally the time for summer movies and after being treated with a comic book based movie, The Losers, we finally come to the real biggie for comic book movies. Honestly, I didn't know anything about Iron Man until I watched the first film. I didn't know he was even some form of a comic book hero. I first got a taste of it from the first movie's trailer. The first movie was a real treat. The second, I was hoping it will be just as good as the first or better. Marvel has big plans for movies ahead, after their success beginning with Spiderman and X-Men, both of which are now having little hope of being big again, Marvel is preparing a string of their heroes for the silver screen, beginning with Iron Man. Coming back to this film, I came in to the cinema with a lot of really high hopes after being teased from the movie's two trailers and remembering the first movie.

"Iron-celebration!"

The movie played out quite differently than what I expect of a sequel. A lot of movies in the past followed the Star Wars' formula with having the second one being darker and bigger in scale. However, this movie felt episodic, with probably the intentions of making more than three film. Like the first, the story has plenty of character development, especially on Tony Stark. He has problems in the first movie. He has problems in this second one too. And that's good, as heroic as a superhero can be, he is still human. We see him trying to deal with his health problem, his relationship with Pepper as well as trying to keep up his company and what his father has establish, dealing with an old family's enemy from Russia, his friendship with Rhodes and dealing with rivalry from the government, while at the same time, he got this really cool toy and loads of money that he wants to enjoy. What's a guy to do? I'm really impressed by Robert Downey Jr's performance. He nailed his role as Tony Stark. Forget Sherlock Holmes and Tropic Thunder, Robert Downey is Iron Man.

Makes you feel small with your Macbook now, eh?

Like the first, this story is character driven. There's plenty of character development from Tony, Pepper and Rhodes. Tony's one is what I mentioned above, we have Pepper dealing with her new position as the CEO of Stark Industries and Rhode's trying to look out for Tony as well as trying to deal with the pressure from the government. What I love about this sequel is not only we got to explore more on our main characters introduced in the first but we also get plenty of new allies and new villains. For those die-hard comic book movie fans who waited after the credit end in the first Iron Man knows who Samuel L Jackson's character is. He has a much bigger role now in this film but doesn't really play a big importance just yet, aside from helping out Stark in some issues and dropping a piece of history on Tony's lap. He is really there to tease us of a great and epic 'Avenger' movie in the future. We are also introduced to Scarlett Johansson who plays Natalie Rushman/Natasha Romanoff a.k.a Black Widow, being the new assistant to Tony replacing Pepper Potts, and an undercover agent for S.H.I.E.L.D. Natalie took the limelight as the leading lady in this movie, indeed replacing Pepper's place as the leading lady in the first movie. I personally felt she was put into the movie and worked into the story for two reasons, an eye candy for the film and a change in leading lady much like how a Bond girl is. When Pepper takes on a boring CEO job, the filmmakers gave us a lady who can 'kick butt', giving us much jaw dropping action moments with some of her moves and a much needed comic relief in some moments. However, I am very impress with Tony's personal bodyguard and chauffeur, Happy Hogan played by none other than the director himself, Jon Favreau. I'm pretty sure he was meant to be a cameo in the first movie but his character here really provided the comedy in this film, and his chemistry with Scarlett’s character in some scenes was really good.

Mace Windu gone bad. He most probably lost his left eye from a lightsaber battle.

Like every superhero movie, a hero needs a villain to do his hero thing. We were introduced to Ivan Vanko, who is Whiplash in the comic, played by Mickey Rourke. A person like Mickey Rourke whose face and looks, as well as his tattoo, will now be the representative of Whiplash in the movie version. I'm a little disappointed at the lack of creativity of designing his character. We have Scarlett Johansson who needed to dye her hair red and Samuel L Jackson who needed to wear and eye patch. Mickey Rourke's look is used as the villain look for the character. Attached him with those Whiplashing stripped down version of the Iron Man suit, probably a little smaller than what Doctor Octopus wore in Spiderman 2, and you get the character Whiplash. That aside, I'm surprise he has quite a small role. He was quickly introduced as a villain from the start, pretty much being made a villain by his father, and it's quickly develop that his purpose in life to bring down Tony. He pretty much clashed with Tony only in two occasions, one in the racetracks and one towards the end of the film. So, not only did he have such a short screen time, he probably has one of the least lines in the film as well. Yes, given that's his character is Russian. That's just sad. Like in Hulk and in the first Iron Man, Vanko pretty much used the same formula to how Tony Stark got his "powers". Vanko with his genius Russian brain, developed tech based weaponary similiar to that of Tony's Iron Man. So much for creativity in this one.

Poster motivation to be more villainy during work

Another villain introduced that I felt pretty much stole much of the villain screen time and lines (Yes, he talks way too much) is Justin Hammer, played brilliantly by Sam Rockwell. He is DE rival to Tony Stark, like Belloq to Indiana Jones, like Mac to PC, like Plakton to Mr Crabs (Spongebob Squarepants). Like Tony, he has his own weapon making industry and he has his very own narcissistic personality. The only thing he lacked is the Iron Man suit which he wants to either steal it or get someone to duplicate it. He reminded me of your comical villains of the past, something like Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor in Superman. Annoying sometimes, but I do enjoy his character and some of the comedy he brought to the movie. Another lesser known villain with his bookend scenes (appearing in the beginning and then in the end) is Senator Stern. He represents the United States of the America and wants Tony to give the Iron Man suit 'to the people of America'.

Welcome to Hammer Industries! Behold the Stormtroopers of tomorrow!

Another character that I want to talk about is Lt Colonel James Rhodes. I absolutely love the character and the friendship he has with Tony in the first film, and it is a pity when the original actor Terence Howard was replace with Don Cheadle with reasons unknown. I find it quite odd and find it somehow difficult to reconcile both actors in one character, especially when both actors look very, very different. It was easier to reconcile Katie Holmes' Rachel Dawes with Maggie Gyllenhaal's Rachel Dawes in Batman, but not so with James Rhodes. But halfway down the movie, you become more familiar with Don Cheadle's James and forget about Terence Howard's James. There's plenty of character development of this character like I mentioned above. You feel his turmoil as he struggles between his friendship with Tony and the pressure he has from the government, as well as trying to look out for Tony. Still the best part about his character is that he is the second Iron Man in this film. He gets to don a heavily weaponized Iron Man suit and be War Machine. He stole the limelight in the trailers, posters and finally in the film itself. Don Cheadle in the War Machine suit probably makes him the coolest looking sidekick in movie history. He provided a lot of friendship drama with Tony, plenty of action and fighting with Tony, plenty of special effects eye candy and some laughter among the audience at a particular scene. I felt Rhodey here is a well polished sidekick character written for a superhero movie. He pretty much beat Robin is to Batman.

Son of Robocop!

Balancing out the drama, character's development and relationship part of the story, there's plenty of action installed as well. I understand a lot of people were disappointed at how little action was there between Iron Man and Whiplash, but there were plenty of action I felt people might have overlooked. Tony and Rhodey had a good fight, Natasha Romanoff/Natalie Rushman had the spotlight as she takes down plenty as she storms into Hammer Industries, there were enough of Robot soldiers for Tony and Rhodey to take down as well as provided an awesome flight and chase sequence. Action aside, it's also the visuals that really stole the lime light from this film. When you think the scene when Tony first don the suit or his household computer named JARVIS holographic screen wows you, the filmmakers pushed it further in this movie. The transformation scene at the race course still blows me away (you can see it at the end of the second trailer) and the holographic lab at the basement of Tony's house has dwarfed your Macbook. There are plenty of Whiplashing actions, Robots firing, War Machine exhibiting every arsenal he has and plenty and plenty of explosions. Perhaps another less noticed special effects that we should give credit for is erasing all the wire work that allow Scarlett Johansson to do all her impossible physic defying moves.

Pepper who?

To all those comic book fans, especially Marvel, I feel that this movie does a good job in teasing all of you. I'm not really a big fan of Marvel, I'm more of a DC comic fan. But I've never been more excited to see Captain America's shield taking the limelight, seeing Samuel L. Jackson's Avenger's initiative for the future and if you wait after the credits, Thor's War Hammer! I've never been more thrilled to wait for Captain America and Thor to come out, and I've never been more disappointed at what Warner Bros is doing with their DC licensing. Where are the Batman and Superman movies? I cannot believe we're going to be treated with Jonah Hex soon and we've been treated with The Losers. Marvel is taking the lead....for now. (My hopes are in Christopher Nolan's third Batman film and Christopher Nolan overseeing the upcoming Superman film)

Overall, I left the cinema feeling quite happy with the film. It didn't leave the same impact as it did for the first movie, but I felt the film was good for a sequel. It didn't feel like a second movie, more of a continuation from the first, the feeling of "the continuing adventures of Iron Man", rather than the second act of the bigger story than will soon come to a conclusion. I would give this film a 6.5 out of 10 "Ex-Wife" bunker buster missile.

Comment below, if you were to weaponize your Iron Man suit, what would be the craziest thing you would install in your suit?

Clash of the Titans (2010)

Enter into the world of the Greek legends and stories where gods rule over men, mythical monsters roam the land and hero and heroine have their stories to tell. This film focuses on the story of Perseus who was found mysteriously in the sea and was raised by a fisherman and his family. His life changed when he is caught in the middle of an event and a time when men decided to rebel against the gods, bringing upon them judgment and the wrath of Zeus. Hades agrees to help Zeus in carrying out the judgment on men and the city of Argos using his monstrous pet, the Kraken to bring devastation to the city of Argos. To bring men into the fear of the gods and their judgment, Hades agrees to spare the city if they were to sacrifice their princess, Andromeda. When the King refuses to sacrifice his daughter, it's up to Perseus to find a way to defeat Hades' pet monster, the Kraken and save the lives of the city and the princess. As he journeys into an adventure to find a way to defeat the Kraken, he learns more about his mysterious past and about his true origin and along the way, building allies and enemies, and facing mythological monsters. Directed by Louis Leterrier, this 2010 remake of the original 1981 film stars Sam Worthington as Perseus, Liam Nesson as Zeus, Ralph Fiennes as Hades, Gemma Arterton as Io and Alexa Davalos as Andromeda.

 Epic-ness...

The story of this movie reminded me of the very classical epic hero story, which is quite a rare treat in today's Hollywood movies. But sadly, it's merely a re-adaptation of the original movie which was out during the Hollywood's golden age of 1980s which gave us plenty of epic hero movies. So, in this new one, there's not much of originality in the story and I'm pretty sure there were nods and homages to the original one for those who have watched and love the original 1981 film. But as for me, having not watch the original 1981 version, I can't say much of the comparison between the old and new. But as your classical epic hero story, the story is well crafted in providing the story's background, the fantasy setting, the diversity of characters of both allies and enemies and even laying out the adventures of the hero, from his humble beginning to the mighty warrior, from his calling to saving the damsel in distress. So, I'm pretty much pleased to see the classical epic hero movie on the silver screen. As epic as it tried to be, the movie also failed to deliver in other areas.

Laurence Olivier's Zeus from the 1981's Clash and Liam Nesson's Zeus in the 2010's.

The characters may be diverse but I felt they were very under developed. The characters were very one note, bland, flat, the same from the beginning to the end. I didn't feel that there was any character development or even character depth. Perseus was the same "I'm the hero" feel from beginning to the end which he didn't quite grow into a hero and we're meant to think he was a fisherman and he couldn't fight at first. It already felt like he was expected to be the hero from the very first scene as a grown up man. Zeus was the same "I'm the god, how dare they defy me?!" from beginning to the end, arrogant and angry. It felt like his heart wasn't affected or soften when he learn about his son he never knew, being on Earth and even after the events that happen in the movie that nearly led to his downfall, he never did show that he learn anything out from it. He was the same from the beginning to the end. Hades, was just the same, and felt like he was only meant to fill in the ultimate villain role of the movie. Andromeda has very little screen time, scenes showing her inner strength and her kindness for her people which I think meant to give the viewers reasons to be saved but ultimately it also felt like she's meant to only fill in the role of the damsel in distress and the princess who needs saving. Io, being the ageless companion watching over Perseus, have been watching Perseus from the beginning to the end, and trying to be the wise counsel to him with no character development. That goes with the rest of the supporting characters as well, everyone was flat. The interaction between characters didn't fare well too. Perseus has been defying Zeus and being angry with him, with very little change of heart. Perseus too went on to his adventure to save the princess whom he hardly even know, for a city he just arrived in, and as for his winged horse he rode, he hardly had much time with it that he just rode it like a car than it being his "mighty steed." The only real relationship or friendship he had was with Io but that too, he never did question how she suddenly just appear into his life.

Your typical damsel in Distress being sacrificed to the Kraken...

Does this reminds you of a scene from King Kong?

I think the acting too wasn't as good as I expect. Despite the various characters introduced in the movie, they're very much like the character themselves very 2D. Sam Worthington just deliver his usual 'hero' look, which he used in his previous films, Terminator Salvation and Avatar. I love it when an actor takes on different and various roles like Johnny Depp and Christopher Lee, pushing their limits and skills in acting. But sadly in Sam's case, his portrayal as Jake Sully in Avatar, Marcus Wright in Terminator Salvation and Perseus in this one is one and the same. With very little hair too, it looks and feels like he is one and the same character in all three movies only with a different name and clothing. Liam Nesson's presence and voice always bring much waves to the audience. Much like what he has done in his portrayal as Ducard in Batman Begins, Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia, Oskar Schindler in Schindler's List, Bryan Mills in Taken, Godfrey of Ibelin in Kingdom of Heaven and Qui Gon Jinn in Star Wars: Episode 1-The Phantom Menace. His portrayal as Zeus is most interesting and I believe if the character was written well, he could deliver it just as well. His name in the cast list may be one of the reason a movie is label 'epic'. However, as for Ralph Fiennes being one of the heavyweight actors of Hollywood, I am most surprise and disappointed that his portraying of Hades is very much a bearded and a 'nosed' Lord Voldemort from Harry Potter. This Hades didn't strike much fear at all. In fact, Lord Voldemort strike more fear in my heart than this Hades does. I don't know if this is the fault of the director or the actor. As for Gemma Arterton, this may be her first time playing an epic female lead, not counting her short screentime in Quantum of Solace. Her next one will be in the upcoming Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. When I saw her in this movie, she strike a familiarity of her character. It's only after I learn she's going to be in the Prince of Persia, I'm only afraid her portrayal of this female lead character in this movie might very well end up being the same as in Prince of Persia, sort of like Sam Worthington's case. We'll just have to wait and see how she fare in Prince of Persia.

"Jake Sully..."

"My name is Marcus Wright..."

The highlights of this movie were the monsters and creatures from the Greek mythology. That would fill the hearts of the fantasy monster loving people. The spotlight monsters in this movie are Medusa and the Kraken, which I think were creepy and menacing from their build up introduction and their scenes. I didn't particularly like the giant scorpions, maybe because that reminded me of the scorpion robot from the first Transformers movie, and they aren't as creatively design as Medusa or the Kraken. Perhaps scorpions both big and small have been used too many times as well in past movies that they loses their nature to be scary. Think Mummy Returns, The Scorpion King and Scorpion King II. The Kraken may be the largest movie monster I have ever seen. But despite the sheer size and terrifying roar it makes, I just didn't feel it hit WOW factor that it should. I'm not sure where they gone wrong but I'm pretty sure this kind of monsters should be left in Peter Jackson's hands. As for Medusa, the tease was the mystery of the appearance of her face. They have never revealed her face in the trailer or the movie posters, and we know that any man who looks into her eyes will turn into stone, so we can only guess if the film will maker either very pretty or very ugly, or both. But in the end, to me there was nothing surprising about her face or her hair of snakes. However, for both of these monsters, I love their build up introduction, where we only hear about them and how they strike fears into the hearts of men before we actually got to see them.

Face to face with Medusa... Is she pretty? Is she horrifying? Ponder, ponder...

I believe this movie fails because they try too hard to make it feel epic. They've got the formula of making a classical hero story, they got diversity of characters and creatures, they've got the all star cast and they've got all the amazing set and costume designs and epic scale production and they've got all the special effects. But when the audience are rushed through the story and character depth and interaction aren't very deep, the audiences loses connection with the characters and their stories and only finds some satisfactory in the visual effects. It does make me wonder if the director or the studio's vision was to create another 'Lord of The Rings' type of movie. I really felt there was potential for this movie to work, but the movie left me neither feeling like Perseus or feeling like I've turned to stone. As far as this movie goes, I would give this movie, a 4.5 out of 10 electronic owls.

Epic shot: Perseus riding on Pegasus along the beach with a sunset!

Green Zone (2010)

During the 2003 US led invasion in Iraq, Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller and his squad were given missions to investigate for Weapons of Mass Destruction in suspected places provided by US intelligence. When carrying out his missions, he realize that every missions he was given, the suspected storehouse for Weapons of Mass Destruction appeared to be empty. He began to questions the reliability of the sources, and soon learn of a conspiracy going on within the government. The movie was inspired from the non-fiction 2006 book Imperial Life in the Emerald City by journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran which documented life in Green Zone, Baghdad. Directed by Paul Greengrass who also directed Bourne Supremacy and Bourne Ultimatum which also starred Matt Damon, this movie stars Matt Damon as Chief Warrant Officer Roy Miller, Amy Ryan as the foreign correspondent for Wall Street Journal, Lawrie Dayne, Brendan Gleeson as the CIA Baghdad bureau chief, Martin Brown, Greg Kinnear as Pentagon Special Intelligence, Clark Poundstone, Yigal Naor as the Iraqi General Al-Rawi and Khalid Abdalla as an Iraqi civilian "Freddy".

This movie is less of an action flick or even a war movie, but it's primary focus is really about finding out what's going on behind this war, and particularly reminding us about the controversies behind the US led invasion in Iraq back in 2003. The goal of the invasion was to disarm Iraq under Saddam Hussien's rule and their Weapons of Mass Destruction. This movie pretty much retells the events that goes on Iraq during that time with fictitious names of Matt Damon's character arc representing the military failure to find any WMD in Iraq, Lawrie Dayne representing the press in search for the truth, the US informant "Magellan" based on real life informant "Curveball" and we have the divided government intelligence represented by Martin Brown and Clark Poundstone. So, once you fit the characters and their stories in place, you pretty much get the story behind the Iraq war in 2003. So, in the end, it felt like the movie is trying to preach than it does in trying to give us an action flick or a war movie.

The war scenes were not all that special, since it wasn't the primary focus of the film. They were not only short but you've got a feeling that the American soldiers already have the upper hand in most of the time. Even when you have Miller by himself, he pretty much become 'Jason Bourne'. The way the war and action scenes were handled was pretty much recycling what they've done in other movies, and just to keep the "action" and some adrenaline going. However, the dialogue and the lines took the stage in this film. The dialogue was what that really drive the story. They were all written very good, definitely better than the effort put into the action scenes.

The characters were secured in their roles in the story. Each definitely played a big part of the story. Apart from Miller and Freddy's character, the rest really doesn't have much character development. Miller loses his loyalty to his government and Freddy becomes more than just your Iraqi civilian. The rest was the same from their introduction to their end. Overall, the characters were written very nicely. But when it comes to the actors portraying their characters, many of them I feel were very two-dimensional. They were all shape into their roles for the story and the actors just execute them. Among all the actors, I feel that 'Freddy' is the most interesting one and Khalid Abdalla played out his character very well, from his confusions about the activity of the American soldier, his emotion and his heart for his people and his country as well as responding to situation that requires him making a big decision.

Matt Damon's character however fall short among the other actors, his character was pretty much two dimensional and pretty much "goal-orientated". His mind was from "I need to complete my mission" to "I want answers from what's going on" and finally "I need to get the truth out." If you ever played a single player first person shooter game, you would realize Miller acts precisely like that. He's just there to complete his objectives. Another disappointed with Miller's character was that he reminded me too much of Jason Bourne. I think this is really because of Matt Damon who played him and previously as Jason Bourne and Paul Greengrass directing this film who also directed the recent two Bourne films. Even their story arc is essentially the same; the government is hiding something from Matt Damon's character and he goes out finding the truth. I'm really disappointed they could not make his character different from one another apart from their name and what they wear.

The special and visual effects in the movie were pretty much used as a tool to make the environment as real as possible. From creating the feel of the bombing of Baghdad in the beginning of the film to the CG destroyed buildings and statues around to the exploded helicopter. The special effect was impressive, but not all that eye popping or overuse. The camera work of the film can be annoying at times, because it's just not steady. But it is pretty much use to capture the intensity of the scenes. So expect action scenes to be really really really shaky and dialogue scenes having less shake. Annoying and possible dizzy if you watch it in the cinema.

Overall, the film is entertaining but not all that special. Unless you're going to consider the message of the film, there's really not much to like...or even dislike. I would give 4.5 out of 10 Book with Al-Rawi's safehouse address.

The Wolfman (2010)

The Wolfman (2010)


Lawrence Talbot returned home after receiving a letter from the fiance of his brother, Ben Talbot, informing him of his missing brother and pleading him to help search for him. Upon returning home, he met his father, Sir John Talbot whom he has never kept in touch for years. He soon learned of his brother mysterious death, believing it to be murdered by a mad man or as some villagers believe, killed by the gypsy's bear. His brother's fiance, Gwen Conliffe, once again pleaded with Lawrence to search for the real cause of her lover's death. Lawrence agreed and went out to the gypsy camp to learn more about his brother's visit to the camp prior to his death.

While in the camp, he soon learn from a gypsy named Maleva, of a beast, the Wolfman, a transformation from a cursed man into a wolf like creature under the light of the full moon. The beast then arrived and rampaged the camp. In the midst of the chaos, a boy ran from the camp and was pursued by the beast. Lawrence gave the beast a chase but ended up being attacked and bitten by it. He survived from the attack, now knowing that the beast was responsible for his brother's death, but was disappointed that the beast was still out there. During his recovery from his wound, he began to discover something more horrifying than facing the beast itself, becoming the beast itself.

Directed by Joe Johnston, the same guy who directed Jumanji, Jurassic Park III and Hidalgo, this remake of the classic horror film stars Benicio Del Toro as Lawrence Talbot, Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot, Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe, Hugo Weaving as Inspector Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard and Geraldine Chaplin as Maleva.


I was very excited when I read the news of this movie being a proper horror film with a very famous monster taking the limelight. It's not a film being a crossover of an all-star monsters of horror like in Van Helsing and not being a false distorted form of werewolf which loses every nature of being horrifying to become an eye candy in New Moon. This Wolfman goes back to what makes Werewolves one of the most horrifying creatures that emerged from Hollywood history. I applaud the filmakers for the direction they are going and the vision they had, because I absolutely hate the Lycans of the Underworld and what they've done to the Werewolves in New Moon... I especially hate what they've done to vampires and witches, because they've absolutely lost all sense of being scary. Even the Mummy is no longer scary. So, I was hoping this movie will do much justice to all the horror monsters out there.


Let's see Jacob from New Moon take on the legendary Wolfman.
Coming out from the cinema, I had mixed feelings about the movie. The movie was good in general, but I felt it still didn't define the meaning of horror as how the original 1941 movie did in its time. I would definitely praise the film for its slow revelation of the monster. There was enough tease in the first half of the film and to finally shock us when the monster's full face is revealed. Wait...the monster showed his face halfway through the movie? No, a matter of fact, the monster showed his true form even before you've watched the movie. Yup, it's on the poster even before you bought the tickets or step anywhere close to the cinema! The monster in all of its glory! So, when watching the movie, there was no real shock. I'm going to blame this on the publicity department, because I really love the direction of the slow revelation of the monster on screen. I could very well turn into a Werewolf and hunt the people responsible for the unashamed spoiler they did to me and the movie audience.

Another aspect I would praise the film for is the art direction. Many of the shots are creepily beautiful. I love the mist in forest, the set design of the interior of the buildings, especially the Talbot manor, the use of lighting of the moon, even the costume the actors wore were absolutely amazing (The tiger skin Anthony Hopkins had, speaks volumes about his character). I especially love the color palette the movie uses. The choice of colors played a lot in painting the scene to be dark and creepy in nature without having much of use of black. The night exteriors emits a shivering cold environment with the use of dark blue and the interiors have an eerie surrounding with a dim lighting from candles, fireplace and even from sunlight through the curtains. There's a gothic and dark feel to the environment, and I believe it's also the choice of the Victorian setting adds to it, rather than having it take place in the 40s as in the original movie.

Apart from its visuals, the sound is quite superb as well. When I meant sound, I meant the sound that the Wolfman makes. He doesn't woof and doesn't pant. He growls, breathes, roars and yes.... howls... iconically! The sound is the key feature in creating the monster. This movie pulled it off perfectly in creating the sounds of this monster. When you think this monster sound takes the limelight, you forget every pant, heavy breathing from other characters around that also adds much to the scene. Much of the time, I'm unaware of the soundtrack and the music being played. And that's a good thing! Compare this movie's transformation scene to that of the 1941 one that uses intense music to make it horrifying. I have to mention this again, the HOWL is awesome!


T...H...X...
When speaking about the creation of the monster, I have to also praise the make up department. That is one absolutely amazing werewolf make up! It's funny to think back in 1941, they have to rely on heavy make up to make their man as much as a wolf, and here we are in the 20th century with computer generated creatures are made with very detailed realism, we could easily (and terribly) turn a man into a wolf (New Moon). The filmakers chose instead to go back to the basics in creating this monster and never have a non-CG creature looks so amazing. I absolutely love it when films resort back to make up, puppetry, models and suited man, because there's a certain magic behind them that CG can't give. What do you think makes Chewbacca, ET, R2-D2, The Terminator, Aliens and Lord of the Ring's creatures so special? It takes certain skill, commitment and devotion from the make up department, the actor behind the mask/suit and the sound department to pull off the perfect creature. It's an art form which could very well be lost in the future with the advancement of CG.


Transformers!
Why then do I have mixed feelings? Well, there were plenty of drawbacks from the films as well. Like I said, I didn't feel one bit scared from the movie. I don't know if the film is just not scary or the monster formula loses its touch in our modern era cinema. They definitely got the monster formula right, from its slow revelation of the monster to it's horrifying acts not clearly seen and to be left in the imaginations of the viewers. But somehow audience today has gotten use to it that bringing back the formula doesn't give the impact it originally have. There was plenty of blood being spilled, which used to give the "OMG" experience but today's audience are very much desensitized, unless you squeezed enough blood out to make audience uncomfortable like Quentin Tarantino would do...still no horror from that, just discomfort.

SPOILERS AHEAD

The story also suffered a little. The story did a good job in setting up the introduction of the characters and their roles and their contribution to the story, but I felt it could have been better. I loved the build up to the transformation of Lawrence into the Wolfman, especially with the idea of not showing the Werewolf true form until the scene of Lawrence's transformation. I also love that the story goes more than just about a man turning into a monster, but also the discovery of something more sinister in the history of the Talbot family. However, the revelation that Lawrence father was in fact the Werewolf that murdered his mother and brother, as well as the showdown between Lawrence and his father as werewolves felt rather silly. I would very much prefer to only have one Wolfman around at a time. Or have the revelation that the Wolfman that murdered Lawrence brother was actually his father, after having that Wolfman killed and transformed into his father in human form. That would have not only left Lawrence shocked at the discovery but also to the audience. Only then have Lawrence turned into the Wolfman.


Like father, like son...
Another part of the story I didn't like was the poor execution of the romance. I liked the idea where the romance between Lawrence and Gwen was necessary for the downfall of the beast, because it is only Gwen whom Lawrence loved, could be up close to the beast and finally shot him right through the heart. However, the build up of the romance between Lawrence and Gwen at the antique shop was badly handled. I didn't find it believable, as much as the short lived love between Lawrence's brother and Gwen... How did they even end up being engaged?


Puppy love?
There was also the aspect of psychological fear in Lawrence dealing with him being the Wolfman, and dealing with the horrifying revelation about his father and the death of his brother and mother. It was an interesting plotline which I believed also failed horribly in execution. His hallucination and nightmares he gets from the treatment he received at the mental institution, felt like it was meant for cheap scare and shock. However, done properly, the beast could not only be horrifying on the outside but also on the inside. It could have given a lot of depth to the monster and also to the character of Lawrence.

SPOILER ENDS HERE

Another complain I have is the acting in the movie. The movie have a good array of cast, but somehow they fail to deliver. I'm not sure if its the director's or the actor's fault. I find it very very interesting that they cast Benicio Del Toro as the Wolfman, possibly because he is a big fan of Hollywood movie monsters and I believe that's a good key, because you really want someone who knows the original monster and knows the importance of delivering that same monster in this film. I believed he took his role as the monster very serious, and he really did deliver an epic performance as the monster but somehow I find him as the human Lawrence not as superb. His performance was very bland as a normal person, but when he's in the role being sick, tortured or undergoing the transformation and being the full formed monster, his acting was superb.


Anthony Hopkins as Sir John Talbot
Anthony Hopkins, one of the heavyweight actors in Hollywood, delivered his performance rather well but not really at the top of his game. He shaped out his character as a villian and a disturbing distant father very well. He gives you the feeling that inside him was very much a monster, perhaps more monstrous than the Wolfman. As for Emily Blunt, her performance was felt very bland as well. I don't buy her feelings for Lawrence or his brother. The only time I did see something in her acting was when she hid behind the tree trying to escape the Wolfman. Other than that, there's was hardly anything to commend about.


Emily Blunt as Gwen Conliffe
And then we have Hugo Weaving, I'm most displease with his performance because it reminded me so much of Agent Smith from The Matrix. He was different in Lord of the Rings, different in V for Vendetta... But this Inspector Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard has too much of Agent Smith in his mannerism and execution of his lines. You would probably feel it is actually Agent Smith with a fake moustache. This movie could have been a potential ground for him to portray a different character and to show his skills as an actor.


Hugo Weaving as Agent Smi-Inspector Francis Aberline of Scotland Yard
Overall, I can say the film is good, not the best though. They will definitely scare some people in the audience but likely too, the film won't scare most of the audience. Whether or not you come out of the cinema feeling like a Wolfman yourself, it is a film worth to enjoy as a homage to the classic horror film and as an interesting work of art. I do hope Universal Studios will do more remake films such as this. I would love to see a remake of Dracula and Frankenstein in the future.

I would give this movie out a 7 of 10 silver bullets.

Now a little treat:
THE TRANSFORMATION OF THE WOLFMAN BEFORE YOUR VERY EYES!

Pride and Prejudice (TV MiniSeries) (1995)

Adapted from the book "Pride and Prejudice" written by Jane Austen, this romance story follows Elizabeth Bennet and her four other sisters as they go through a season of courtship and marriage, as well as their family's relationship with two particular gentlemen, Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy, who newly arrived to their estate located near the Bennet's. The story also deals with the virtue of women, moral uprightness and the manners of the society during the turn of 19th century. This BBC six episodes television drama is adapted by Andrew Davies, produced by Sue Birtwistle and directed by Simon Langton. The cast includes Jennifer Ehle as Elizabeth Bennet, Colin Firth as Mr Darcy, Susannah Harker as Jane Bennet, Crispin Bonham-Carter as Mr Bingley, Julia Sawalha as Lydia Bennet, Benjamin Whitrow and Alison Steadman as Mr. and Mrs. Bennet, Lucy Briers as Mary Bennet, Polly Marberly as Kitty Bennet, Adrian Lukis as Wickham and David Bamber as Mr Collins.


The daughters of Mr and Mrs Bennet:
(From left to right)Lydia, Jane, Mary, Kitty and Elizabeth
I have not been a fan of romance themed movies but I am absolute captured by the richness of the story, characters and their relationships in this movie adaptation of the book. The movie overall story is divided into six parts which made each episodes start and end satisfyingly. Each episodes consisted of its own unique subplot but doesn't run away from it's main story. More than just a romance story between Elizabeth and Mr Darcy, but the story delved into capturing the romance of the 18th century; the importance of family status, the golden virtues of a woman, the importance of a married women and its implication to the family, the status of a society as well as dealing with aristocrats of that time and the manners and society rules in courtship and marriage. The movie takes you back in time and gives you a glimpse through the eyes of Jane Austen and her surroundings when she penned the novel.


The 17th century style of courtship
As mentioned in the title, the limelight of the story is on the Elizabeth's prejudice against Mr Darcy and Mr Darcy's pride that has left him 'rather disagreeable' by many people around him, especially to Elizabeth. That being painted in their relationship, made their romance story interesting to follow. Their relationship can also be compared that with the almost-perfect loving relationship of Elizabeth's oldest sister, Jane and Mr Darcy's friend, Mr Bingley, and as well compared on the other end of the scale, Elizabeth's flirtatious youngest sister, Lydia and her relationship with men. Setting up Elizabeth and Mr Darcy's relationship is one of the finest stroke from Jane Austen's creativity, and the cast who played them, did a brilliant job in portraying their characters.


Mr Darcy and Elizabeth
However, the conflicts and the tensions of the story are more than what is between Elizabeth and Mr Darcy but also the struggle in the Bennet family when it comes to marrying their daughters, keeping their family's integrity and reputation, as well as dealing with people of a higher class. Not only do these conflicts captured the settings and time of that era but they add tension to many of the character's relationship. It is worth to take note that Jane Austen contrasted the lives of the Bennet's family with that of Mr Darcy's, the character of Elizabeth with that of her sisters and every relationship in the story compared with one another. Jane used them creatively in the plot to flesh out and reveal much of each characters as well as keeping the story engaging. I believed the movie fleshed them out very well.


Distress in the family.
The characters in this film, much like the book I believe, were very well written, adapted and cast. Elizabeth and Mr Darcy showed great character development, from their introduction that captured each of their characteristics to their first meeting in the ballroom that carried forth the tension into their relationship with one another. Each characters in the film are unique on their own and they play a great role into the story. The actors and actresses who played them were absolutely brilliant, especially Jennifer Ehle, Colin Firth and Alison Steadman in their respective roles. Annoying as Mr Collins' character can be, I also find it quite interesting that David Bamber could pull off his role very well.


"Oh, what a man have I become."
The characters were very well developed in the story, and they can very well be contrasted to flesh out more of their characteristics. Take for example Elizabeth, she is depicted to be a headstrong woman with a wit, a sharp tongue and a person who speaks her mind while at the same time, she's caring and love her sisters and have a very compassionate side. Compared that with her oldest sister, who is more gentle and soft spoken, and that with her two youngest sister, Lydia and Kitty, who are more playful and couldn't care less of a woman's virtue. Elizabeth too, can be compared with the sisters of Mr Bingley, who lived in a more high class society, and her friend, Charlotte, who appeared to be very much content with her life.


A sisterhood's moment in the garden
Comparison too can be found between the men, like Mr Darcy, Mr Bingley and Mr Wickham. Relationships too can be compared with one another; the relationship with Mr and Mrs Bennet in a 20 years old marriage, the relationship with Mr Bingley and Jane, Elizabeth and Mr Wickham, Elizabeth with Mr Darcy, Lydia with a soldier from the regiment, Mr Darcy and one of Mr Bingley's sisters. So, there's much to appreciate from the novel and the film. Like a work of art, every time you look, there's so much that can be analyzed.


Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy
Captured in this film as well, is the detailed 17th century backdrop. The film crew went great length to create the props and the costumes, and scout for locations that pretty much makes you feel like you're watching a film that was captured from that era, rather than that of 1995. I love every details of each scene, especially the ones that involves dancing.


Jane and Mr Bingley dancing
I believe that to speak well of the movie is to speak well of the book. I find the story very engaging and the characters and setting quite fascinating. My utmost praise goes to the cast and their faithful portrayal to the book and as well as the great lengths that the crew members went to create a believable romance of that era and to bring forth a faithful adaptation. Fans and readers would definitely not be disappointed, and I believe romance-movie goers would definitely find this more favorable film than the present day romance films. Perhaps, the drawbacks in this film are the old appearance of the film's quality, which cause many of the modern viewers preferring the 2005 version, and the sophisticated english jargon in the lines, which may be quite difficult to hear. But that can be solved by turning on the subtitles. If that can be overcome for the viewer, the lines written can be a plus point and be as fascinating as watching the drama in the movie. Overall, I would give this a 7 out of 10 Mrs Bennet's nerves.


Mr Darcy


An awkward moment


"Yes, I find this Pride and Prejudice novel rather amusing."


"Farewell! I shall be back in 2005 with the face of Simon Woods!"