Genre: Drama/ Romance/ War
Director: James Kent
Cast: Keira Knightley, Alexander Skarsgård, Jason Clarke
Runtime: 1 hr 49 mins
Rating: R21 (Sexual Scenes)
Released By: Fox
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 14 March 2019

Synopsis: Set in postwar Germany in 1946, Rachael Morgan (Keira Knightley) arrives in the ruins of Hamburg in the bitter winter, to be reunited with her husband Lewis (Jason Clarke), a British colonel charged with rebuilding the shattered city. But as they set off for their new home, Rachael is stunned to discover that Lewis has made an unexpected decision: They will be sharing the grand house with its previous owners, a German widower (Alexander Skarsgård) and his troubled daughter. In this charged atmosphere, enmity and grief give way to passion and betrayal.

Movie Review:

Had ‘The Aftermath’ been released many years earlier, it would probably have been Oscar-worthy material not unlike ‘The English Patient’, ‘Atonement’ and ‘A Very Long Engagement’; but given Hollywood’s overwhelmingly singular obsession with diversity, such love-in-wartime dramas no longer seem to be in vogue. Even so, we suspect this post-World War II romance between the wife of an American general and the German architect whose house they are temporarily staying in will find its appeal with mature audiences looking for an undemanding time in the cinema.

Based on the 2013 bestseller by Rhidian Brook, the story paints its female protagonist Rachel (Keira Knightley) as an emotionally brittle woman who has yet to fully overcome the loss of their young son some years ago in London. She arrives a few months after the Allied victory to join her husband Colonel Lewis Morgan (Jason Clarke) in Hamburg for the post-war settlement effort, and the couple put up in a beautiful villa belonging to Stephan Lubert (Alexander Skarsgard) which the British army had requisitioned. Rather than send Stephan and his teenage daughter Freda (Flora Thiemann) to a camp, Lewis graciously offers to let them stay in the attic, an arrangement which Rachel is initially deeply uncomfortable with.

There is good reason for both Rachel and Stephan to distrust each other at the start – while the Germans had dropped the bomb which killed Rachel’s son, the Allies were responsible for the bombing which claimed the life of Stephan’s wife. Their mistrust is portrayed with nuance in a couple of nicely choreographed scenes in the first act, including one where she sneers at his chic modernist chair in the living room and another where she accuses him of not being honest about the picture of Hitler which used to be hanging in the living room.

Just as sensitively depicted is the resentment which Rachel holds of Lewis, begrudging him for seemingly overcoming the death of their son too easily. While it would have been convenient to reduce their relationship to that, the film makes it clear through their mutual exchanges that both Lewis and Rachel still love each other dearly. And in doing so, director James Kent conveys a compelling message about the destructive nature of grief, which can not only cloud our basic humanity but also tear us away from the ones closest to us.

As you probably can guess, this is the aftermath which the title of the film refers to, the consequences of a devastating war which has left ordinary people on both sides picking up the pieces of their lives before. But there is yet another aftermath to be told, which follows from the illicit romance between Rachel and Stephan as they see in each other kindred souls wounded by the war. Both Knightley and Skarsgard seem aware of how easy it would be to scoff at the attraction between their respective characters, and in turn display extraordinary care balancing restraint and passion in their subsequent scenes together. Thanks to them, as well as Kent’s deft handling of the material, their relationship never at any point reduces itself to caricature.

Any book-to-screen adaptation would have needed to trim some of the plotting in the former away, and this is no different. Whereas those who have never read the book would not have guessed that the Morgans have a second living son, it is quite obvious that a subplot involving Freda’s seduction by a Nazi guerrilla fighter (Jannik Schümann) receives short shrift in the film. Seeing as how the said fighter plays a pivotal role in the denouement, the narrative could certainly have benefitted with a fuller treatment of their teenage courtship – which in turn would also have kept more of the post-war context in the foreground, even as the focus shifts to the events leading up to the second aftermath we earlier described.

Even so, whether Rachel chooses to stay with Lewis or leave with Stephan isn’t that difficult to guess, but the treatment here of what could have been mopey and melodramatic makes all the difference. Instead of going histrionic, Lewis remains a dignified presence all the way through, and Clarke brings gravitas to his character that has surprising depths of emotion. Without giving it away, let’s just say that the conclusion is undeniably moving, and brings the film back to its most gripping theme of how people move on from tragedy.

As far as love-in-wartime dramas go, ‘The Aftermath’ is elegant enough to endear itself with mature audiences looking for some cathartic viewing. It packs a poignant message about the emotional toll of war, as well as the consequences of our choices when we seek refuge rather than reconciliation, without ever being moralistic or didactic. Certainly, it doesn’t hurt having Knightley and Skarsgard as the pair of illicit lovers – not just because they are easy to look at, but also because both exude palpable sexual chemistry next to each other; neither for that matter does it hurt to have a solid character actor like Clarke complete the romantic triangle. And with the gloss of tasteful prestige fare and the sumptuousness of a period drama, it surely is ravishing in more ways than one.

Movie Rating:

(What could have been mopey and melodramatic is instead handled with restraint and nuance, and played with genuine emotion by the stars, such that this love-in-wartime drama brims with poignancy and poise)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Comedy
Director: Shin Terra
Cast: Kang Ji-Hwan, Sung Yu-Ri, Lee Soo-hyeok, Kim Yeong-kwang, Shin Min-chul, Sin Jeong-geun
Runtime: 1 hr 50 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Coarse Language And Sexual References)
Released By: Cathay-Keris Films& Encore Films
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 17 January 2013

Synopsis:  Detective Cha (Kang Ji-Hwan) smells bad and is overweight. Nevertheless, he is a devoted cop who always tries his best to catch the bad guys. A new case then arises. Illegal narcotics are infiltrating into the fashion industry and a detective is needed to work undercover as a model. There are only 2 detectives taller than 180 centimeters required to work as a fashion model. One of them is Detective Cha and the other detective walks strangely due to to a hemorrhoidectomy. Detective Cha is selected to go undercover as a male model in designer Ko Young-Jae's (Sung Yu-Ri) next fashion show. Designer Ko Young-Jae tells Detective Cha that he has to lose 20 kilograms in 2 weeks so that he can work as a model in her upcoming show. Detective Cha then goes on a strenuous regiment to lose the weight.

Movie Review:

Runway Cop could be easily dismissed as yet another Asian movie using the overused formula of an ugly duckling transforming into a swan; perhaps the only difference is the reverse of gender of the protagonist. How well can this serve to entertain?

Runway Cop comes from the director of the successful Korean movie, My Girlfriend is an Agent (2009). Director Shin is definitely no amateur at making rom-com. The challenge is to keep the content fresh and action sequences exciting as expected of an undercover story. In that respect, the movie had a reasonably good start, having a police and thief chase scene, where detective Cha weaved his way through the wet market to pin down on the suspect. You’ll be impressed with the incredible flexibility, albeit exaggerated, of the overweight Cha.

However, as the story develops, the sequence of events is simply not packed enough to keep the audience’s interest high. Tracing the leads, the police eventually want to crack down on the masterminds behind the suspected drug dealing at the fashion shows. As they ran out of options, they decided to send Cha as the undercover. As Cha undergoes the hell training and get groomed to become a model, there are several attempts to poke fun and ridicule the fashion/modelling industry. These attempts came off only as minimally entertaining for the uninitiated though. Also, you might have the impression that the movie went one step forward, and in the next moment, took three steps back.

Still, kudos to the cast for keeping this movie entertaining for the most. In particular, Kang Ji-Hwan was reported to put on the pounds and shed them subsequently to achieve the lean figure of a model, so as to make fat version of him more convincing. Although actor Kang Ji-Hwan and actress Sung Yu-ri are no longer the young faces that pop up on the latest Hallyu news, they are certainly respectable for their professionalism dedication in acting.

How can a rom-com be without the ‘love’? But to be honest, the romance between Detective Cha and designer Ko had really little or no impact to the main storyline. It is possibly still added rather forcefully as such stories have an appeal to many. Some couples can probably identify with their story: the deadly attraction of the opposites. Their clash of the worlds is so dramatic that it added on to the comedic effect. However, it was a real pity that their on-screen chemistry only became apparent towards the end of the movie.

All in all, Runway Cop has adopted a similar formula as 200 Pound Beauty – an obnoxious character undergoing a transformation and finding the love of his/her life, whatever or whoever that may be. The appeal of such light-hearted and inspiring story will always be there, so is expected of new movies that fall under this genre is to set itself apart, keeping its content fresh to audiences. In this respect, the Runway Cop was really not that unique; the only value added aspect is the action (which isn’t particularly awesome by the way). Characters like Detective Cha can possibly leave you a strong impression with his nastily bad hygiene, but does not have much of a personality to make the movie a more successful one. 

Movie Rating:

(Entertaining and good-humoured but nothing ground breaking. Perhaps it can serve as a good mid-week perk-me-up for people who really lack some laugh)

Review by Tho Shu Ling
  

Genre: Martial-Arts/Comedy
Director: Wong Jing
Cast: Eric Tsang, Sandra Ng, Ronald Cheng, Wong Cho-Lam, Rose Chan, Natalie Meng Yao, Xie Na, Sammo Hung, Yuen Wah, Dennis To, Kimmy Tong, Philip Ng, Jiang Luxia, Timmy Hung
Runtime: 1 hr 34 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence)
Released By: Shaw & Encore Films
Official Website: http://www.encorefilms.com/kungfumasters

Opening Day: 14 March 2013

Synopsis:  During the early years of the Republic era, in the North-East region of China, the people are suffering from the power struggle among the local Warlords, bandits, and Japanese invaders. Warlord Lam (Sammo Hung), is not a leader of great vision, but having a patriotic heart, stands firm in his own beliefs, despite the several solicitations and temptations from Japan.

The only 'paradise' within the region is 'Lucky Town', the one place where no one dared to attack. Rumors abound that this place is cursed, for whenever anyone attempted to invade Lucky Town, they would disappear and vanish without a trace. In reality, there are seven kung fu masters who have retreated into the shadows and resided here. They are Manysons (Eric Tsang) Madonna (Sandra Ng) and Madonhung (Xie Na), the owners of a steamed bread shop Nam Mor Bing (Yuen Wah), the Taoist priest Horny Four (Wong Cho Lam), the tailor Little Trumpet (Ronald Cheng), the cosmetic salesman and Mamasan Maggie (Natalie Meng), the brothel owner. Every one of them is a master in his own right, keeping Lucky Town in peace.

Lam’s daughter, Cheryl (Kimmy Tong) is very fond of culinary arts, and often does grocery shopping in Lucky Town. She is pretty and lovely and very much favoured by the Seven Masters, especially Horny Four who falls for her at first sight and regards her as his dream lover.

The Japanese secret agent, Kiyoko Kurosawa (Monica Mok), allied with traitors from the Tiger’s Den: Tiger Hong, Jaguar Hong and Phoenix Hong (Jiang Luxia), to set up a secret outpost to send secret-coded messages back to Japan. Young patriots, Yan Fang (Rose Chan) who disguised herself as a man,and Howard Luo (Dennis To), infiltrate Tiger’s Den at night, trying to steal the code book. They lose the fight to the Hongs, Howard sacrifices himself to save Yan who was wounded.

On the run, Yan is rescued by Cheryl. Mistaking Yan as a man, Cheryl falls for Yan. She then brings Yan to Lucky Town and begs the Seven Masters to cure Yan. On the other hand, Warlord Lam saves a pretty lady and grows fond of her. This lady is actually Kiyoko Kurosawa in disguise. Using Ninjutsu skills, Kiyoko seduces Lam and controls his will. She then organises a wedding for Lam and herself, in the hope of becoming the warlord’s wife so she can control Lam’s army. On the wedding day, Cheryl and the Seven Masters arrive in time to ruin her wedding plans. Lam regains his senses finally and unites together with the Seven Masters, to fight against Kiyoko and the Hongs.

Movie Review:

If you’ve never liked a Wong Jing comedy, then you might as well stop right here, because we can assure you that his latest hardly reinvents the wheel. But anyone who’s loved a Wong Jing comedy for the nonsensical laughs it offers will find much to like about ‘Princess and 7 Kungfu Masters’, his umpteenth attempt at trying to fuse kungfu with ‘mo lei tau’ comedy – think the ‘Kung Fu Mahjong’ trilogy or ‘My Kung Fu Sweetheart’ – proving to be surprisingly successful relative to his earlier efforts.

Key to this is Wong Jing’s decision to populate his film with an over-abundance of characters. Yes, what may seem like a shortcoming at first sight actually works to the film’s advantage, or more accurately Wong Jing’s advantage. Though he’s written over countless number of movies, the prolific multi-hyphenate (i.e. writer/ producer/ director) has never had a forte for creating strong impressionable characters, and this latest seems to demonstrate a newfound self-awareness of both his strength as well as his weakness.  

Eschewing any sort of character development, Wong Jing instead focuses on creating engaging scenarios specially catered to the specific trait of each one of the characters – be it the steamed bun shop owner with the sonic boom voice, or the effeminate tailor with an inferiority complex due to his height, or the brothel owner with her posse of ‘Charlie’s Angels’ sidekicks. Since each is likely to be just as one-dimensional with more or less screen time, Wong Jing opts for the latter and thereby succeeds in maintaining a brisk and jaunty pace for the entire of the film’s duration.

Thankfully, the heavyweight cast he has managed to assemble for this lightweight comedy do not seem to mind; indeed, as far as we can see from the outtakes that appear with the end credits, it is almost as if each knew that all he or she had to do was to have a good time. Not giving any thought to the possibility of eclipsing each other’s presence, the likes of Ronald Cheng, Sandra Ng, Eric Tsang, Yuen Wah and Wong Cho Lam embrace wholeheartedly their thinly drawn roles, content to enjoy the process of playing off one another in each of the film’s (and there are many) crowded scenes.

More than adroit at giving each one of his leading cast his or her due in the course of the movie, Wong Jing ensures that each one of the characters gets his or her showpiece comedic scene as well as his or her showcase kungfu scene – even if the bevy of characters means that each actor seems to get no more than an extended cameo in all. That’s especially true for Sammo Hung and Dennis To, both of whom get top billing on the film’s poster but who are noticeably absent most of the time. Still, not a single one of them seems to mind, and thanks to their infectious verve, there is not a single boring moment to be found.

Quite astutely, Wong Jing tones down the lame dialogue he is often accused of, and instead lets the action do the talking. Here, the laughs come largely with the kungfu, with Wong Jing having to thank veteran action director Philip Kwok (whose resume includes the 1987 ‘A Chinese Ghost Story’ and the pair of 1990s ‘Bride with White Hair’ movies) for the consistently exciting fighting sequences. There’s nothing ground-breaking to boast of, but Kwok demonstrates an impressive ability of fusing action and comedy that makes this one of the best – if not the best – among Wong Jing’s kungfu laughers.

Of course, the fact that this is more tightly directed than most of his usual comedies might be because Wong Jing shares directing duties here with Keung Kwok-Man, his go-to cinematographer in his most recent years (including ‘I Corrupt All Cops’, ‘Treasure Inn’ and even the dreadful ‘Future X-Cops’). There is quite astonishingly little slack here, which is a lot to say given Wong Jing’s often slapdash direction. And while it is by no means an accomplishment as ‘The Last Tycoon’, ‘Princess and 7 Kungfu Masters’ at least counts among one of his better comedies, especially good for a mindless entertaining diversion to help you relax at the end of a hard day’s work. 

Movie Rating:

(An infectious ensemble cast brings much fun and mirth to this entertaining blend of kungfu and laughter, which also counts among one of Wong Jing's better comedies)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Sci-Fi/Adventure
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Cast: Tom Cruise, Morgan Freeman, Olga Kurylenko, Andrea Riseborough, Nikolaj Coster-Waldau, Melissa Leo
RunTime: 2 hrs 5 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence and Coarse Language)
Released By: UIP
Official Website: http://www.oblivionmovie.com/
 
Opening Day: 11 April 2013  

Synopsis: Tom Cruise stars in Oblivion, an original and groundbreaking cinematic event from the director of TRON: Legacy and the producer of Rise of the Planet of the Apes. On a spectacular future Earth that has evolved beyond recognition, one man’s confrontation with the past will lead him on a journey of redemption and discovery as he battles to save mankind. Jack Harper (Cruise) is one of the last few drone repairmen stationed on Earth. Part of a massive operation to extract vital resources after decades of war with a terrifying threat known as the Scavs, Jack’s mission is nearly complete. Living in and patrolling the breathtaking skies from thousands of feet above, his soaring existence is brought crashing down when he rescues a beautiful stranger from a downed spacecraft. Her arrival triggers a chain of events that forces him to question everything he knows and puts the fate of humanity in his hands.

Movie Review:

So much for its ambition of being a ground-breaking science-fiction thriller – like the first of many twists that you will no doubt see coming, ‘Oblivion’ is a clone of other far superior genre classics, e.g. the little-seen but highly acclaimed ‘Moon’. Indeed, much excitement has been swirling around its plot details, fuelled no doubt by its long-gestating genesis – meant in the first instance as a film, developed as an unpublished graphic novel, and then reverting back to a motion picture after a heated auction and a changing of hands from Disney to Universal – but this passion project from ‘Tron: Legacy’ director Joseph Kosinski isn’t particularly smart or original to satisfy those heated expectations.

Narrated by Tom Cruise’s lead character, a Commander Jack Harper, the story is set sixty years later after a heated war between mankind and aliens has decimated much of the Earth as we know it. Its inhabitants evacuated to one of Saturn’s moons, Jack is apparently but one of the few remaining humans, a ‘Techie’ whose mission is to maintain the drones that are protecting the machines extracting the Earth’s remaining resources. Jack’s luckier though than most other equivalent sci-fi characters; he’s got a female companion Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), who is also his Comms officer maintaining contact with Mission Control – aka Sally (Melissa Leo) – and watching his back while he is out on his runs.

The opening prologue establishes not only the cataclysmic backdrop but also Jack’s inner state of mind, haunted by visions of a distant yet familiar past of him on a busy New York City street and on the viewing deck of the Empire State Building before the Earth’s devastation. Reality though is far more sombre, as Jack senses the imminence of some larger danger looming with a sudden spike in the number of crippled drones that have their nuclear fuel cells subsequently removed. That’s supposedly the nefarious work of what’s left of the warring alien race, referred to as the Scavengers, which prowl the wastelands to destroy any trace of human civilisation.

Anyone with a reasonable amount of doubt will certainly guess that there is more than meets the eye, but Jack only realises that when a rogue signal brings a space shuttle crashing onto the surface of the Earth. Not only does the craft called the Odyssey carry with it some human astronauts in deep sleep, one of them whom Jack risks his life to protect is the girl he glimpses in his dreams, a certain Julia Rusakova (Olga Kurylenko). Truth comes knocking when he escorts Julia to return to the crash site to retrieve the flight recorder but is instead captured by an insurgency led by the enigmatic Malcolm Beech (Morgan Freeman), who urges him to look beyond the obvious.

Fortunately for him – and perhaps less so for those of us hoping for some deeper revelation – Jack needn’t think too hard. No prizes for guessing what sort of resistance Malcolm and the rest of his guerrilla army are fighting, or who Julia was to Jack in his previous life, or even the very nature of Jack’s being; even though Kosinki and his writers – Karl Gajdusek and Michael Arndt – try their darnest to keep their cards close to their chest, the deck that they hold isn’t that surprising or outstanding after all. Peripheral details aside, this is essentially the story of one man who thinks he is fighting on the right side of justice, learns that the world that he used to know was a lie, and then decides to switch sides to fight for the resistance. Wait, wasn’t that basically the story of ‘The Matrix’ as well?  

Once you accept that this isn’t going to be some masterpiece, you’ll come to better appreciate Kosinski’s treatment. Just as he amply demonstrated with his feature film debut, Kosinski’s strength lies in his ability to transport his audience into a richly imagined world full of stunning detail. There is something truly astounding and even humbling about the  post-apocalyptic landscapes against which the movie is based - from half-standing baseball stadiums to the ruins of the Empire State Building to the pockets of lush untouched greenery – that Kosinski uses in a particularly evocative manner, such that every frame is always visually and emotionally engrossing to suit the mood of the scene.

More significantly, Kosinski has greatly matured as a filmmaker since his first outing. No doubt assisted with a much stronger script than ‘Tron: Legacy', Kosinski displays a newfound dexterity in his storytelling, keeping a brisk and engaging pace throughout the movie through a good balance of larger action-packed sequences and quieter intimate moments. Noteworthy is the fact that of the former, there is an exhilarating high-speed chase over mountains, gorges and valleys that especially impresses; whilst of the latter, the mystery behind Jack’s identity is well-played for poignancy. At least we can reassure you that if you thought that ‘Tron: Legacy’ was more style than substance, there is a lot more substance here to match Kosinski’s distinctive visual style.

And then of course there is Hollywood’s leading man Tom Cruise, who plays a variant of his stoic loner-type characters not too different from his latest ‘Jack Reacher’ (the similarity in first name entirely a coincidence) or his earlier ‘The Last Samurai’. Cruise goes for a more subtle (i.e. less showy) performance this time round that fits in nicely with the restrained tone of the film. Although he gets to share more screen time with two beautiful ladies, Olga Kurylenko and Andrea Riseborough, it is his scenes with Morgan Freeman that possess the most zing  - pity then that there are too few of those in a film that uses Freeman in no more than an extended cameo.

Certainly, that doesn’t feel like the only missed opportunity in a movie whose hype threatens to be its Achilles’ heel. More derivative of other seminal sci-fi classics than you would expect it to, ‘Oblivion’ will disappoint those looking for a genre-defining masterpiece. Instead, what it boasts is a filmmaker well in tune with the sensibilities of the genre, who has taken some of its signature elements and recycled them into something intriguing yet ultimately familiar, and whose eye for detail and spectacle is rather amazing to say the least. It is visually stunning no doubt, and packed with enough intrigue and excitement to make for a captivating leap into a dystopic future. And for the more discerning, we'd leave you with the following poem from the ‘Lays of Ancient Rome’ which is quoted in the movie - after all, if it knows to quote 'Horatius', it probably does boast some level of elegance:

"To every man upon this earth
Death cometh soon or late.
And how can man die better
than facing fearful odds,
For the ashes of his fathers,
And the temples of his Gods.”

Movie Rating:

(Not a classic by any measure, this intriguing yet familiar thriller that boasts its director Joseph Kosinski’s eye for visual spectacle still packs suspense and excitement for a satisfying sci-fi outing)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Drama
Director: Kang Yoon-sung
Cast: Ma Dong-seok, Yoon Kye-sang, Cho Chae-yun, Choi Guy-hwa
RunTime: 2 hrs 2 mins
Rating: NC-16 (Violence & Coarse Language)
Released By: Golden Village Pictures 
Official Website:

Opening Day: 4 January 2018

Synopsis:  2004, Seoul. Coming from Harbin, China, JANG Chen is a new breed of gangster who single handedly takes over a mob and becomes the most feared gangster in the city. He and his merciless gang are willing to do anything it takes for money. Ruthless detective MA Seok-do wields his powerful fists to maintain peace in his city. When MA notices JANG falls his district into chaos, MA and his ragtag group of detectives form a plan to get rid of JANG and his men for good.

Movie Review:

With the real-life ‘Heuksapa Incident’ as backdrop, writer-director Kang Yun-sung makes an impressive feature filmmaking debut in the gritty yet colourfully entertaining crime thriller ‘The Outlaws’. Like the 2007 gang turf war that took place in Seoul’s notorious Garibong-dong district, Kang builds his film around the entry of ruthless Chinese gangsters who are not afraid to resort to brutal methods in order to muscle into the lucrative criminal underworld of moneylending, gambling and prostitution. Here, their leader is the pony-tailed Jang Chen (former boy-band singer Yoon Kye-sang), who in one of the opening scenes is seen demanding payment of two hundred thousand dollars upon a loan of just thirty thousand and then smashing the debtor’s wrist when he pleads for leniency.

Jang is pitted against the tough but kind-hearted Ma Seok-do (Don Lee, otherwise known as Ma Dong-seok) of the Geumbong Police’s Serious Crimes Unit – in contrast to Jang, Ma’s introduction sees him first walk right up to two men during a knife fight on a public street in broad daylight while on his mobile phone and disarming them without even breaking a sweat. Rather than weed out the various factions of Chinese-Korean gangs who have taken root in the neighbourhood, Ma’s approach has been to accommodate them by preserving the balance of power among them, even if it means getting them to sit down in the same room and hug it out as an early sequence involving two rival gangs Venom and Isu demonstrate. Obviously, Jang’s entry upends that fragile peace, as the vicious former Changwon gangster takes care of the competition by either stabbing them to death (and disposing them in parts all over the district) or pitting the other gangs against one another.

Though the opening titles suggest some massive clean-up operation, what ensues is really a tactical play orchestrated by Detective Ma and his superior Captain Jeon (Choi Gwl-hwa), who are forced by their bosses to make a PR demonstration that they are in control lest cede charge of the situation to the Seoul Metropolitan Police’s homicide department. Ma’s plan involves getting the assistance of the local shopkeepers to collect ground intel on Jang’s Black Dragon gang – although it does take some persuasion before they are willing to overcome fear of possible reprisal – culminating in a well-coordinated crackdown over the course of a single night to ensnare the entire gang, especially Jang, in one fell swoop. We might add too that viewers will get the pleasure of seeing Ma and Jang go mano-a-mano at each other, and that bruising sequence is as fierce as it is gratifying.

Not surprisingly, the storytelling largely follows the template of a procedural that sees Ma investigate the brutal murder of the Venom gang boss Ahn Sung-hee, following the latter’s run-in with Jang over one of his associates’ debt. In between, the narrative makes good room for character beats, such as the camaraderie between Ma and his men, the coming-of-age of the team’s latest addition Hong-suk (Ha Joon), and Ma’s quasi father-son relationship with a teenage boy running a snack cart along one of the district’s busy pedestrian street. Through these scenes, Ma’s uncompromisingly bad-ass but unmistakably sweet character rises above caricature, elevated by a textured performance by Lee of unexpected emotional heft. Compared to Ma, Jang isn’t all that interesting at all, not least because the broad, flowing wig he wears comes off more an unnecessary distraction than some show of true unhinged menace.

On his part, writer-director Kang is just as deserving of credit for his grasp of authenticity. From the bar rooms to the BBQ restaurants to the back alleys and right down to the makeshift container that is Ma’s office, each one of the settings feel vivid and real. Kang also eschews the usual stylized fight sequences for messy real-life brawls, and the result is satisfying old-school action that is right at home in a gritty crime picture like this. In fact, there is a lot to admire about what Kang has pulled off in his debut film, which makes up for what it somewhat lacks in narrative polish with sheer visceral realism. It also helps that Kang has a wry sense of humour, knowing exactly when to play it straight and when to inject some levity into the proceedings. Of course, through it all, Lee’s larger-than-life lead role shines through, and ‘The Outlaws’ gets a whole lot more lively, engaging and affecting thanks to him. 

Movie Rating:

(Don Lee's macho yet suitably wry lead performance is worth the price of admission alone, but the combination of well-worn procedural and some genuinely affecting character beats also make this crime picture one of the best Korean films of late)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Action/Thriller
Director: John Moore
Cast: Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney, Amaury Nolasco, Sebastian Koch, Yulia Snigir, Cole Hauser, Megalyn Echikunwoke, Anne Vyalitsyna
Runtime: 1 hr 38 mins
Rating: PG13 (Violence & Some Coarse Language)
Released By: 20th Century Fox
Official Website: https://www.facebook.com/DieHardMovies

Opening Day: 7 February 2013

Synopsis: Bruce Willis returns in his most iconic role as John McClane - the “real” hero with the skills and attitude to always be the last man standing. This time the take-no-prisoners cop is really in the wrong place at the wrong time after traveling to Moscow to help his estranged son Jack - unaware that Jack is really a highly-trained CIA operative out to stop a nuclear weapons heist. With the Russian underworld in pursuit, and battling a countdown to war, the two McClanes discover that their opposing methods make them unstoppable heroes.

Movie Review:

Our hearts go out to Bruce Willis. Truly. Six years after successfully restarting the most important character of his entire moviemaking career, Willis has to watch it all crash and burn to the ground with this loud, dumb and plain boring fifth chapter, the erroneously-titled ‘A Good Day to Live Hard’. Indeed, while its immediate predecessor ‘Live Free or Die Hard’ banked on a winning formula of old-school heroics with new-age sensibilities, this sequel is firmly stuck in the past – and the worse thing about it is that it would only be passable by the standards of an 80s action movie.

Truth be told, Willis isn’t at all the reason why this fails to be a good day for the ‘Die Hard’ franchise. At the age of 57, the man can still run, carry a mean weapon and kick ass – not to mention his trademark squint and unflappable wisecracking attitude. To put it simply, Willis is still very much the John McClane we’ve loved in the 80s and 90s and even in the very last movie before this one. But much as Willis tries, he is severely let down by a toxic combination of weak scripting and even weaker directing – the former of which by Skip Woods and the latter by John Moore.

Little in either Woods’ or Moore’s filmography suggests that they are capable of rising above mediocrity, and this exercise in blandness is proof of that foolish consistency. Let’s start with Woods’ script, which clearly thinks it can be a ‘Mission Impossible’ by way of ‘Die Hard’ – so instead of putting the New York City detective in his home turf, or for that matter, his home country, decides to transport him all the way to the Moscow to wreak havoc. The excuse? To reconnect with his long lost son, Jack, who has apparently turned bad and is now imprisoned in Russia.

Nowhere in the rest of the story does Woods manage to convince us that the change in location is worth the while. Even though we are now well into the 21^st century, Woods still seems stuck in the last, so not only are the good guys and bad guys drawn along the lines of Americans and Russians respectively (cue the stereotypes about both nationalities), the plot has something to do with as archaic an institution as Chernobyl. Oh yes, we’re back to foiling some nasty Russian’s nefarious plan of using the uranium from the site to build weapons of mass destruction.

To make matters worse, Moore is too daft to realise that the very premise in itself strains credibility. How else can you explain why following scene after scene of destruction around the Russian capital, there is no sign of any law and order agency? Are we supposed to believe that the police are too busy or nonchalant to care about some highway chase that decimates pretty much every one of the city’s infrastructure it comes across? Or that no authority responds to some helicopter firing round after round after round into a high-rise building? We like that our action movies are escapist, but not when they ignore every shred of common sense simply for expediency.

The fact that we pay attention to these details is in itself telling, for despite a frenetic pace that goes from scene after scene of action, the movie remains a bore. Shots are fired, things get blown up and people get killed from time to time, but at the end of the day, all that action is staged so unimaginatively that it fails to even interest – let alone excite – you. The pacing within each sequence is too monotonous, the sound seems perpetually cranked on loud, and the weaponry – plus an over-used helicopter – just gets tiresome too quickly. As if to compensate for the lack of any genuine thrills, the climax goes over-the-top, but like the rest of the movie, grows so incredulous – especially in slo-mo – that it is just laughable.

Ironically, what passes as John McClane’s wise cracks is anything but humorous. Most of McClane’s lines are in the context of his father-son relationship with Jack (Jai Courtney), but are hardly witty or engaging. They are also frustratingly repetitive, consisting of John lamenting how Jack nary shows him any respect as a father, or John lamenting how he had expected no more than a vacation in Moscow, or some inane topic like whether they will grow a third hand after stepping into Chernobyl without any protective suit. If John’s lines are horrid, the rest of the characters can be no better – and what really takes the cake is when John’s nemesis Alik (Rasha Bukvic) talks about how he used to be a pretty good tap dancer whom no one appreciated.

Even more lamentable is how this instalment, if played right, could have been an exciting new page for the ‘Die Hard’ series, with John passing the baton to his CIA operative of a son Jack. Yet this fifth chapter is easily the worst ‘Die Hard’ entry and quite possibly might sound the death knell for the franchise. If John McClane had a penchant for landing in the wrong place at the wrong time, then ‘A Good Day to Die Hard’ is Bruce Willis’ unfortunate mistake of being in the wrong movie with the wrong people. 

P.S. Just so you know, the Singapore version here bleeps out the 'F' word several times in order to qualify for a more family-friendly PG13 rating.

Movie Rating:

(Bruce Willis does what he does best as John McClane, but bad lines, an equally insipid plot and frenetic yet uninsipired action sequences make this quite simply one of the worst days of the ‘Die Hard’ series – despite what the title suggests)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Drama
Director: Sacha Gervasi
Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Danny Huston, Toni Collette, Jessica Biel, Michael Stuhlbarg, James D'Arcy, Michael Wincott, Richard Portnow, Kurtwood Smith
Runtime: 1 hr 39 mins
Rating: PG13 (Brief Nudity)
Released By: 20th Century Fox
Official Website: http://www.hitchcockthemovie.com/

Opening Day: 14 February 2013

Synopsis: HITCHCOCK is a love story about one of the most influential filmmakers of the last century, Alfred Hitchcock and his wife and partner Alma Reville. The film takes place during the making of Hitchcock’s seminal movie PSYCHO.

Movie Review:

Flip through any book that deals with classical film theory or history and the film Psycho is sure to pop up in more case studies than one. Almost every lesson in filmmaking can be found in this single title alone—montage, editing, sound, scoring, suspense, plot, climax, and even marketing! The fascination with this film and its infamous shower scene has become as much a cultural icon as it is synonymous with the birth of the slasher genre, and the film itself underwent a shot-to-shot re-make by art house director Gus Van Sant in 1998.

Building the film Hitchcock around the wide interest in one of the director’s most prominent films, then, seems an intuitive move for director Sacha Gervasi. Not so much a biopic as much as it is a snapshot of Alfred Hitchcock’s life during the period in which he made Psycho, Hitchcock unfolds swiftly, and Gervasi wastes no time in getting to the many controversies and urban legends surrounding the film and its creator.

Writers John J. McLaughlin and Stephen Rebello are well familiar with the copious production notes and essays written about Psycho, and Hitchcock is littered with many juicy stories about its making. Some of these include the particularly challenging stairway scene involving Inspector Milton Arbogast, the film’s censorship woes, as well as the many pranks that the cast and crew played on the set of Psycho.

At the end of the day, however, the film is about Hitchcock, and Hopkins is charming in the titular role. He maintains the Hitchcockian stone-faced demeanour throughout, rarely blinking, and pairing the director’s signature paunch with his trademark stiffness. Thankfully, the audience is afforded not just a stock caricature of the man, but also facets of his complex nature. There’s no shortage of Freudian and Oedipus baggage in Gervasi’s portrayal of Hitchcock in a few surreal scenes, where Hitchcock is shown vicariously dreaming and hallucinating through the twisted fantasies of his male leads and harbouring inexplicable obsessions with a blonde woman of mystery. Laura Mulvey will be well-pleased that her theory on voyeurism and an obsession with the female subject, discussed in Vertigo (1958), is re-explored in the story of its creator.

While Hopkins is apt at conveying Hitchcock’s inner struggles through the man’s stone-faced façade, he sometimes brings a sense of self-consciousness to the endeavour that detracts from its authenticity. The scales tip a little too, whenever his demeanour is milked to some strange comic effect. Granted, Hitchcock himself is quite the character, but the scenes reek of the pandering, bankable “safeness” of Hollywood fare, which is a little insultingly un-Hitchcockian. A good film takes risks, as Hitchcock says in the film, and Hitchcock the movie isn’t really risky in any respect.

Gervasi kills two birds in working the more complex aspects of character development into Hitchcock’s experience in making Psycho. But he, in fact, pulls off a hat-trick by balancing three large story arcs rather successfully, with the third showing how Hitchcock’s wife, Alma Reville has always played a pivotal role in the success of the great director. Casted for the sole reason that only an actress of her calibre and experience could hold her own alongside Sir Anthony Hopkins, Dame Helen Mirren is excellent as Alma, although her build is not quite as petite as the real-life character. The film packs in a startling amount of depth into Alma’s story, showing her struggles as her youth fades and melts into competition with Hitchcock’s nubile leading ladies, temptation with adultery, and a desire to step out from the shadows of the great director. For all the marriage angst explored in Hitchcock, the film could have been called Hitchcock and Alma, just like the HBO film, Hemingway & Gellhorn (2012), about author Ernest Hemingway and his journalist wife.

The mise-en-scènein Hitchcock gloriously harks back to the days of the Hollywood studio system, the colours are of the rich ‘60s and Scarlett Johansson is nicely cast as the perky Janet Leigh. It’s all very neat and economical, and in place of answers, leaves breadcrumbs of clues to the mystery that is Alfred Hitchcock.

Movie Rating:

(Hitchcock is a good film; easily enjoyed even by those not thoroughly familiar with the auteur’s work, but the burden of homage that rests on this humble film is a little too pronounced at times)

Review by Tay Huizhen

Genre: Drama/Biography
Director: Steven Spielberg
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, Tommy Lee Jones, Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes, Gloria Reuben, Walton Goggins, Bruce McGill, Joseph Cross, Jackie Earle Haley, David Oyelowo, Michael S
Runtime: 2 hrs 30 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence And Coarse Language)
Released By: 20th Century Fox
Official Website: http://thelincolnmovie.com/

Opening Day: 21 February 2013

Synopsis: LINCOLN is the story of the final four months in the life of one of the most iconic presidents in American history. This ticking-clock thriller examines the collision between Lincoln and the powerful men of both political parties as he struggled to end the bloodiest conflict the country had ever known, The Civil War -- and change the course of history by ending slavery and restoring the unity of his country. LINCOLN is directed by Steven Spielberg, and stars two-time Academy Award® winner Daniel Day-Lewis as the President – and includes cast members Joseph Gordon Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, David Strathairn and Sally Field.

Movie Review:

Steven Spielberg is a director who can do no wrong. And that we know from his impressive filmography. How else would you explain his ability to conjure the movie magic that is so apparent in films like JurassicPark(1993), Saving Private Ryan (1998) and Catch Me If You Can (2002)? Come on, you’ve got to admit as flawed as 2008’s Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was, it is still better than a lot of the Hollywood crap out there. Hence, that is probably why the man has got 15Oscar Best Director nominations under his belt, the latest from helming this historical drama film.

But did this reviewer enjoy the 150 minute epic as much as he hoped to? Not really, simply because he isn’t the biggest fan of history. It also didn’t help that he doesn’t have much interest in American history (he does, however, know that Abraham Lincoln wasn’t a vampire hunter as depicted in Timur Bekmambetov’s version). However, that doesn’t mean this long and dry biopic of one of America’s most respected president isn’t a good film.

The biggest credit goes to, as you would have expected, the leading man Daniel Day Lewis. The 55 year old English actor disappears into the role of Lincoln, and he will have you believe the president himself is on screen, trying his very best to have the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution passed by the United States House of Representatives. No idea what the whole fuss is about? Go check with Google. In a nutshell, the plot of this film focuses on Lincoln’s final four months of his life, as he attempts to put an end to the civil war in his country.

And thanks to Day Lewis’ astoundingly engaging performance, your eyes will be fixated on him every single time he makes a speech. Having already won several Best Actor awards, he is expected to take home the golden statuette at the Oscars this year. His nomination is one of the 12 the film has received, and that is not really surprising for a production of this nature.

Besides Day Lewis, you can also expect first rate performances from the ensemble, which includes David Strathairn, James Spader, Hal Holbrook and Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who probably is the weakest link for the first time in his career, Standing out from the crowd are Tommy Lee Jones and Sally Field, who this reviewer really hopes can snag the Best Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress accolades at the Oscars.

For those who are not fans of “talky” films, you may find this a drag to sit through. There aren’t many action sequences, and the characters seem to be discussing really serious issues – a lot. But expect production values that is nothing short of impressive, from Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography to Michael Kahn’s editing, and from Rick Carter and Jim Erickson’s production design to John Williams’ score, there is nothing you can fault. And you know why this is so – the film is under the masterful direction of a guy named Steven Spielberg. 

Movie Rating:

(Watch this for the impressive performance by the ensemble cast)

Review by John Li

Genre: Drama
Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Cast: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Joaquin Phoenix, Laura Dern, Rami Malek, Jesse Plemons, David Warshofsky, Lena Endre, Josh Close, Fiona Dourif, Ambyr Childers
Runtime: 2 hrs 24 mins
Rating: M18 (Nudity and Sexual References)
Released By: Golden Village Pictures
Official Website: http://www.themasterfilm.com/

Opening Day: 24 January 2013

Synopsis: A striking portrait of drifters and seekers in post World War II America, Paul Thomas Anderson’s THE MASTER unfolds the journey of a Naval veteran, Freddie (Joaquin Phoenix), who arrives home from war unsettled and uncertain of his future until he is tantalized by The Cause and its charismatic leader, Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Amy Adams plays Dodd’s wife, Peggy.

Movie Review:

It’s difficult to sum up Freddie Quell, and even harder still to sum up the reasons for how he came to be who he is.

Erratic, wilful, restless, violent, sex-crazed, amoral—and above all, primal—he cannot look at another straight in the eye, or sit still for more than a few blinks. In Singaporean terms, he is your average Ah Beng, so to speak. Displaying all the symptoms of a socially retarded adult, Freddie is an enigma. To say he is a little disturbed—a little out of sorts—is to put things very mildly. His only link to better days is memories of an ex-flame named Doris (played by Madisen Beaty) who is the Rosebud of his mysterious past.

Impossible to diagnose, and incorrigibly damaged, Freddie is the living guinea pig for the unorthodox cognitive experiments and “processing sessions” of Lancaster Dodd (played by Philip Seymour Hoffman). A self-proclaimed wearer of many hats, Dodd is the titular “Master” of the story, an institution in his own right. His claim to fame lies in being founder of “The Cause,” or a movement devoted to The Secret-type thingamajigs, and espouses the self-help ideas of tapping the powers of the subconscious and unlocking past memories to achieve one’s true potential and raison d'être.

In a role that is both highly emotionally and physically demanding (it’s hard not to get phantom shoulder aches just watching him in character, and you’ll only get what I mean once you’ve watched the film), Phoenix delivers a valiantly authentic and incredible performance that more than warrants an Oscar nod.

Together with Hoffman’s equally strong onscreen presence, the two are a powerful force in the film. Hoffman is magnetic and often hilarious in portraying the charismatic Dodd. It is a marvellous revelation that Dodd’s cult-like proclamations are parodied as erratic and flawed as Freddie himself, alongside hints that Dodd is perhaps the one true person who can help Freddie help himself.

Revered for pushing aside many staid rules of filmmaking, auteur Paul Thomas Anderson fashions yet another work of art in The Master. The bold strokes of his camera-stylo paint the inexpressible, through a vision that is atmospheric rather than linear; where montage, stylised mise-en-scène, and oftentimes surreal sequences are the preferred weapons of mass engagement.

There are numerous beautifully-shot scenes and lush, vivid motifs in The Master, scenes which deserve places in the great cinematography halls of fame, such as when a track shot follows Freddie as he runs through a door and the frame opens out into an extreme long shot of the character emerging onto vast, empty land, or the scene of a garden party that starts with a low-angle, off-centre shot from the patio of a house and the camera slowly pans to the right, capturing a moment of endearing and heartfelt interaction between Freddie and Dodd.

It takes a really skilful director with exceptional vision and a thoroughly deep understanding of how soundtrack, visuals and dialogue can play on each other to achieve ironic juxtapositions and often wonderful filmic possibilities. In showing us myriad ways of telling a story, and in the minor key to boot, The Master is a varied masterpiece.

When a director makes you confront your average movie-goer blind spots in viewing and appreciating a film, or when it chooses to reward you differently—not through neat plot closures, or eye candy starlets or mandatory climaxes; when you can’t even begin to predict the very next move the director is going to make, you know you’re in for a real treat.

Can one create a film that’s so rogue yet tempered, so raw yet elegant? Or a film that stirs up some of the deepest, most intense emotions in a manner so thoroughly distant and Brechtian? Anderson is the master of paradoxes, and The Master tells you he can. Uncompromisingly grey, The Master will have you leave the theatre with doubts aplenty; doesn’t even scratch the surface of many questions it so ruthlessly thrusts onto the audience; and yet, is satisfyingly complete.

Here,I am compelled to cite Bazin, who once said that “the screen is a mask whose function is no less to hide reality than to reveal it.” After all, it must be the hunt that counts.

Movie Rating:

(You’ll either really love or hate The Master, but it will be the most intriguing film you see this year. Meaningfully avant-garde and fearlessly in a league of its own, The Master is a visual, cerebral and emotional feast)

Review by Tay Huizhen

Genre: Thriller/Drama
Director: Chan-wook Park
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Dermot Mulroney
Runtime: 1 hr 39 mins
Rating: M18 (Sexual Scene)
Released By: 20th Century Fox
Official Website: http://www.donotdisturbthefamily.com/

Opening Day: 7 March 2013

Synopsis: After India's (Wasikowska's) father dies in an auto accident, her Uncle Charlie (Goode), who she never knew existed, comes to live with her and her emotionally unstable mother Evelyn (Kidman). Soon after his arrival, she comes to suspect this mysterious, charming man has ulterior motives, but instead of feeling outrage or horror, this friendless girl becomes increasingly infatuated with him.

Movie Review:

On the surface, Stoker may appear to be a gothic psychological thriller rife with suspense and a touch of ‘Addams Family’ quirkiness, but Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook's (Sympathy for Lady Vengeance, Old Boy) first outing in Hollywood is a coming-of-age movie that doesn’t take itself lightly.

Mia Wasikowska is India Stoker, a brittle teenager with an aversion to physical touch, a perpetual frown, an intelligence level bordering on the better end of the autism scale and a general dissatisfaction with the way her life is playing out. It may be useful to note here that the screenplay (another first effort, this time by Prison Break’s Wentworth Miller) was based loosely on Alfred’s Hitchcock’s classic, A Shadow of a Doubt. Hitchcock’s lead actress playing the role of the niece is vivacious in a way India would never be or aspire to be, but the two teenage female characters share the same uncanny emotional connection with their uncles, named Charlie in both films. Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) comes to visit the day after India’s father passes away in a horrific accident, and her oblivious mother Evelyn (a suitably flighty Nicole Kidman) is immediately taken with his enigmatic charm. Naturally all is not as it seems, and as India’s and Charlie’s worlds collide, everyone begins to fall apart.

To say more would be spoiling the story, in part because the film's appeal lies in its ability to elicit the audience's sustained curiosity about the underlying motives, thoughts and subsequent actions of each character.

Shot in tight angles with the main actors appearing boxed in or isolated in the most frames, the movie seems to emphasise the most unsettling of sounds - the cracking of eggshells, the creaking of furniture, even the simple act of swallowing creates discomfort. Nearly every scene is immaculate and visually appealing, the transitions barely noticeable unless they are intended to be. Viewers who have caught Park's previous films may even catch a familiar insect making a cameo. The overall feel is effective: the tension builds from a slow simmer before boiling over when India finally achieves much needed self-realisation.

Miller’s screenplay requires actors who can do much with minimal material, and Wasikowska performs ably as the chilly India, who is at once perceptive and suspicious, but also curious and bold. Goode leverages on his natural charisma while maintaining the necessary restraint by never letting a single smile reach his eyes. Both actors, in demonstrating how their characters are seemingly one soul in two bodies, ensure every shade of expression is rendered highly significant. The film references Hitchcock in many aspects, and this is just one of them.

Stoker's conclusion ties up fairly wittily with its beginning; it's a movie that requests for the viewer to pay attention, but this time it’s worth the effort. 

Movie Rating:

(Korean auteur Park Chan Wook's first Hollywood outing is a riveting and suspenseful character-driven thriller that recalls a Hitchcock mystery in many aspects)

Review by Wong Keng Hui