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!"

Universal Soldier (1992)

Private Luc Deveraux, a soldier from the Vietnam war, tried to save innocent civilians from being murdered by his sergeant, Andrew Scott who had become psychological and murderously insane from the war. Their confrontation had left them dead and their bodies were taken into a top secret military project to create the perfect soldiers, called the Universal Soldiers. In this project, Luc and Andrew were resurrected from the dead, with their minds wiped and their bodies super enhanced with strength that goes beyond any ordinary human being. They were programmed to follow orders and carry out missions of military purposes.

During a terrorist event at the Hoover Dam, the Universal Soldiers were called in as an elite counter-terrorism unit. They completed the task with minimal efforts, proving the success of the project. TV journalist, Veronica Roberts, who was recently fired from her job tried to pick up a story on the Universal Soldiers which ended up causing her to be pursued by the military's Universal Soldiers. Luc, under the codename GR44, was initially sent out to capture Veronica, decides to protect her as he begins to regain his memories, especially that of his final moments in Vietnam. He begins a search of his previous life; to find his home and find his family. However, Andrew, universal soldier GR13, while pursuing Luc and Veronica, also begins to regain his memory back and decides to take control over the leadership of the project.

Directed by Roland Emmerich and produced by Mario Kassar, this movie stars Jean-Claude Van Damme as Luc Deveraux, Dolph Lundgren as Andrew Scott, Ally Walker as Veronica Roberts, Ed O' Ross as Colonel Perry, Jerry Orbach as Dr Christopher Gregor, Leon Rippy as Woodward and Tico Wells as Garth.


Jean-Claude Van Damme as Universal Soldier GR44
I'm actually quite surprise with this film. Before watching it, I had a notion it will be a B-rated movie filled with mindless action. I don't deny that there were plenty of that but I was very much entertained by the concept and the story behind it, and there were plenty of action in this movie to keep you from being bored. I, at first refuse to watch it, but Terh Ren insisted that I watch it before watching the lastest of the series, Universal Soldier: Regeneration (Entitled as: A New Beginning in Malaysia) which was released just few days ago. I was expecting it to be something in between Terminator 2, from its cyborg look and Arnold Schwarzenegger's Commando being a mindless muscleman with guns action flick.


The plot is simple to understand and it is very much an action orientated movie with a good enough story to keep it alive. The scene where the movie introduces the Luc and Andrew's background in Vietnam, felt very high class, much like a scene from Francis Ford Coppola's Apocalypse Now. It sets up the conflict between the two characters very nicely and how it passed on to the present day of 1992. Apart from the introduction scene, the rest of the movie felt very much like a B-rated sci-fi movie. The concept of superpowered men has been used very often in movies while the reason behind the superpowers varies. This one however, involves the resurrection of the dead, their mind wiped and reprogrammed to make superhuman more like robots which then make it feels like you're watching a rip off version of Terminator 2, which had Arnold Schwarzenegger being a robot behind the human skin. The problems and conflict arose from the Superhuman project when the soldiers begin to regain their memories back, made the story quite interesting and compelling enough to watch and follow.


Andrew and Luc in Vietnam
The plot device involving being chased by the villian and having the hero running away or/and protecting the target has been used many times before, especially in the Terminator Series. This plot device called for a lot of action sequences, which there are plenty to feed the action hungry viewers. From explosions, gun fires and even hand to hand combat (and plenty of kicks from Van Damme), this movie falls very nicely in your typical action movie category. There's nothing dazzling or groundbreaking in the effects, stunts or the action sequences, so don't expect too much from this movie. Keep your mind open and enjoy the ride.


Luc taking aim.


The Van Damme's Kick
Apart from its serious story and action-packed sequences, there were plenty of humorous moments in the film to allow the audience to mentally rest and prepare for the next adrenaline rush. Those humorous moments include the bar fight and some of the interactions between Luc and Veronica. The scenes weren't over the top funny which made watching them quite amusing and enjoyable but some of the lines being said were quite lame, especially the lines that come out of Andrew's mouth. Andrew made too many jokes during the killing scenes and fighting scenes, which became quite annoying. But I don't blame him, I blame the writers of the screenplay.


"Look who's laughing now"
The character of Luc, Andrew and Veronica were neatly carved out and their characters' development were handled very well. Some of the side characters, like Colonel Perry, Dr Christopher Gregor, Woodward and Garth have a very small significance in the movie, mostly to support or to flesh out the portrait of main characters and their history. Some of the other characters in the movie were merely for humor, like the people in the bar, the man at the gas station and the couple in the motel room.


Luc contemplating of his previous life.
One of problems I have with this movie was Van Damme's acting. He showed no expression and his line's delivery were flat. I would pass it off when he was portraying the robotic nature of the universal soldier, but when he was suppose to be apparently more human, especially when he was wholly human in the Vietnam scenes, his lines and acting were still very flat. The only positive point for him being there was his delivery in action sequences. The rest of the cast members were good in acting out their roles as compared to Van Damme, especially Ally Walker and Dolph Lundgren. But I believe the limelight goes to Dolph Lundgren's potrayal in his character. Despite having mentioned his badly written lines and the wrong timing of his jokes, he played the psychologically insane Vietnam War sergeant very well, and every delivery of his lines were good, though not perfect, but was very much better than Van Damme's.


Dolph Lundgren as the insane Sergeant Andrew Scott


Veronica overlooking the carnage done by Van Damme
Overall, the film is enjoyable and not to be taken too seriously. If you look pass some of the violent scenes and the language used, it is a very entertaining movie, especially those who love to see some action (I do feel there are better action films out there) or Van Damme executing some of his moves. Not the best around nor does it come close to being epic, but it makes a good film to watch with your popcorn. I would give this film a 6 out of 10 severed ears on a string.


Universal popcorn!

The Prestige (2006)

(In Michael Caine's Voice) Every reviews consist of three parts;

The first is the Pledge, the reviewer shows you a movie, what appears to be of an ordinary title with an interesting poster and a trailer, and maybe it comes with a brief summary of the story.

The second is the Turn, the reviewer takes what you know about the movie and tells you about his opinion from his background and insights of the movie, turning the movie into something extraordinary.

The third and the last act is called the Prestige, where you wouldn't clap yet until after you've sat down and watched the movie.


Takes place in the beginning of the 20th century, The Prestige, adapted from the book of the same name by Christopher Priest, is a story that follows two magicians, Robert Angier and Alfred Borden and their rivalry and obsession for the best magic act that has led to them to destroy their lives and the lives of people around them. Directed by Christopher Nolan, this movie stars Hugh Jackman as Robert Angier, Christian Bale as Alfred Borden, Michael Caine as Cutter, Scarlett Johansson as Olivia Wenscombe, David Bowie as Nikola Tesla, Andy Serkis as Alley and Rebecca Hall as Sarah Borden.

This movie is truly a work of a genius. It is very neatly crafted, cut and almost beautifully poured itself out of the screen that make this film truly one of the finest I've ever seen. All the cast in the film gave their best performances, especially to the three heavyweight Hollywood actors; Christian Bale, Hugh Jackman and Michael Caine. But this movie ultimately belongs to Christopher Nolan, he is the artist behind this artwork. Christopher Nolan proved himself to be one of the top filmmakers of our time.

There's a lot to be appreciated in this film, particularly the themes that is played out in the film. The broad theme that is played out in the film is the three part of the Magician's Act. Narrated by Michael Caine in the beginning of the film, the act involves the Pledge; where the Magician shows you something ordinary, The Turn; where the Magician takes the ordinary object to do something extraordinary, and The Prestige; where the Magician then brings back the ordinary object to the way it was, which in a disappearing act means to make it reappear again. To the magician, the Prestige is what mattered most. Watch closely, as the theme involved more than just making a bird disappear and reappear again as performed by Michael Caine in the beginning of the film, but it stretches out to Transported Man trick performed by both Robert and Alfred and it also goes further to reflect much of their lives during the course of the film. The tricks performed in the film goes more than just impressing audiences, but they convey a much larger message in regards to the film.


Underlying Message?
Another theme being used in the film was sacrifice. How much would a Magician sacrifice to bring forth a good trick? The theme is more than just a Chinese Magician performing the Fish Bowl appearing trick as a result of pretending to be cripple for the rest of his life,but it also reflects how much would Robert and Alfred sacrifice for their perfection of their tricks, to what extend would they go to reach for it and how others would suffer because of it. Other theme involved were obsessions, duality and many more which I probably did get to catch which need to be watched closely.


Chung Ling Soo performing the fishbowl trick
The characters in the film were very well developed. Each character's relationship played a huge role in the movie and each character's development progressed very well as a result from events in the film. Robert and Alfred's character is meant to be studied and contrasted. Robert's character fell from "not wanting to harm a bird" in his tricks to "getting his hands dirty" for the perfection of his tricks. Alfred, however, was very much devoted to magic that his wife, Sarah and his daughter began to suffer at his expense of keeping his secrets. The rivalry between Robert and Alfred escalated in tension from one event after another, which ended with their lives being at stakes. Characters such as Nikola Tesla, were used to strengthen Robert's obsession, and very much parallels Robert himself. And his story behind his rivalry with Thomas Edison reflected Robert's rivalry with Alfred. However, Fallon, despite appearing almost insignificant, will be revealed to have a greater role than you might expect. As for Cutter, he plays the role of a guide and a father-like figure to Robert.


"I love you"


The Professor


Olivia
Another aspect of the film that I would praise, that I believe it's the stroke of Christopher Nolan's genius is the second-replay value. After having gone through the first run of the show, you'll be expose to an interesting twist and revelation in the end. And if you were to watch again, with the revelation in your mind, you're then invited by Christian Bale in the beginning of the film, "Are you watching closely?" The non-linear narrative would then make much sense, as well as certain key scenes begin to impress on you much heavier than it did before.


"You caught me in the wrong mood last week"



So, if you have already watched it on the first run, do watch it again.

Overall, this film is truly a work of art that really stands out from other films. This is one of those films that you requires you to watch closely (couldn't have been emphasized enough by Christian Bale) and take some time to think over it over the themes, and only then can you appreciate it as it is. I would praise the films for its execution of its theme in various levels and the great replay value it offers. These, I believe, are the film's strongest points. The minor setback really is the non-linear narrative which can be difficult initially to understand and place which event came first and which one came later. But watching it a second time pretty much fixed that properly. I would give this film a 10 out of 10 no-ordinary rubber balls.

So, like I was saying....


The Pledge


The Turn


The Prestige (The scene that follows this)