Genre: Drama/History
Director: Randy Ang
Cast: Qi Yuwu, Deanna Yusoff, Joanne Peh, James Seah, Sezairi, Mike Kasem and Lim Kay Tong as Lee Kuan Yew
Runtime: 2 hrs 10 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence)
Released By: blue3 Pictures, mm2 Entertainment and Shaw Organisation
Official Website: https://www.facebook.com/1965movie
Opening Day: 30 July 2014
Synopsis: ‘1965’ is a riveting dramatic thriller that uses a piece of Singapore history like never before. Telling engaging and touching stories of immigrants and natives; how a group of people, divided by race, language and religion, saw their lives profoundly transformed by a defining moment in history. Their paths will cross and clash in the race riots during the months leading to the separation from Malaysia, and to the independence of Singapore.
Movie Review:
If there is one thing that ‘1965’ has going for it, it is hype. Long before its multi-hyphenate executive producer/co-writer/co-director Daniel Yun explained what his passion project was all about, speculation was rife that it would be a biopic about Singapore’s founding father, and even rumours of Tony Leung Chiu-Wai playing our very own Lee Kuan Yew. For the record, LKY is in the film, not as a main character but a pivotal supporting act, and played authoritatively by veteran character actor Lim Kay Tong. Unfortunately, all that hype has amounted to pretty much nothing, as ‘1965’ is no better than a stodgy pseudo-documentary set in two distinct time periods within the year leading up to Singapore’s separation from Malaysia, i.e. that titular year in which we gained independence.
Narrated like a didactic piece of politically correct propaganda by Sezairi Sezali, it opens in present day with Sezali and lead actor Qi Yuwu’s real-life fathers playing older versions of their characters, who we are told have survived the tumultuous period of the early 1960s very different from the Singapore we know today. Just before we are dropped into 3 September 1964 (which, if you haven’t been sleeping during your history lessons, should know as the second racial riot of that year), we get a glimpse of LKY preparing for his iconic national address the year after, which we realise later is meant to bookend the fictional parts of the film. But yes, it is on that fateful day where a Malay trishaw rider was found murdered in Geylang that we are first introduced to the various characters whose fates will intertwine over the course of the film.
There is Qi Yuwu’s police inspector Cheng, a doting husband to his wife Mei (Nicole Seah) and daughter Xiao Yun. There is James Seah’s Seng, brother to Cheng and leader of a group of educated intellectuals purportedly fighting for Chinese rights. Seng is in love with Jun (Joanne Peh), a simple-minded girl who spends her days helping her father out in his coffee shop in Chinatown. On the other side of the racial divide is Deanna Yusoff’s Khatijah, a fruit seller in Geylang with four sons, among them Sezali’s new recruit Adi and the youngest named Rafi. In the ensuing melee, Rafi dies from a head injury as Khatijah looks helplessly on, her pleas to Cheng to save her son falling on deaf ears because Cheng is apparently shell-shocked to see Seng instigating the violence.
It’s an awkward scene to say the very least, not only because of bad framing but also because the camera lingers too long on Yuwu’s (already) blank face and Yusoff’s histrionic crying. There is also little continuity to explain just how the riots which began in Geylang spread all the way to Chinatown, and the intercutting of scenes from these two locations just makes the lack thereof even more apparent. It doesn’t help that Sezali has to add an intrusive voiceover at the end of it to practically tell us how to interpret the racially drawn conflict, almost as if the filmmakers couldn’t trust their audience to be discerning enough. Ditto for the second half, which leapfrogs a few months later to the Chinese New Year celebrations in 1965, that sees Xiao Yun being kidnapped and the Malays being fingered for her disappearance.
Indeed, somewhere in the severely neutered narrative is a poignant reminder of how the cloud of distrust between the Malays and the Chinese led to fomenting tensions, especially with Khatijah blaming Cheng for the death of her youngest child and Cheng suspecting that his daughter was kidnapped by the Malays in a tit-for-tat move. Yet in spite of a potentially explosive setup, there is absolutely no dramatic tension in the storytelling. Nowhere is this more apparent than in a supposedly emotional scene where Cheng and his wife Mei arrive at Khatijah’s doorstep to personally declare his innocence; not only is Cheng’s impassioned speech about “not allowing fear and suspicion to take root and lead to misunderstandings” sanctimonious, the way it is presented – with Cheng speaking in fluent Cantonese while Mei translating impassively in Malay to Khatijah and Cheng taking over at the end to make a final point in seemingly fluent Malay – is simply baffling.
To give Yun, his director Randy Ang, and co-screenwriter Andrew Ngin the benefit of the doubt, it could not have been easy navigating the bureaucracy to produce a film about the racial riots, which probably explains why the portrayal of the interracial discord seems so dispassionate (in order not to be accused as being inflammatory in itself). Yet, this doesn’t excuse the clumsy staging, the melodramatic excesses or the tepid pace, such that one is hard-pressed to consider their film a thriller by any count, nor riveting by any measure. Even the finale where Cheng and Seng confront Xiao Yun’s kidnappers unfolds in the most unexciting manner, squandering any opportunity to exploit what artistic license they have over the material into anything genuinely engaging.
That feeling of missed opportunity also pretty much sums up our sentiments towards the first Singapore film to portray LKY. Not only do the filmmakers fail to deconstruct the aura of the man for a younger generation who had not lived through Singapore’s founding years, they also fail to weave the few scenes of LKY preaching his ideology of a multi-racial Singapore into a compelling theme with the fictional narrative, so much so that Kay Tong’s appearances end up no better than a distracting sideshow that belong in a different movie altogether. Yes, it is telling when the most moving part of the movie is its epilogue made up of recently shot real-life footage of crowds lining the roads to pay tribute to Singapore’s founding father’s casket on its way from Parliament House to the state funeral at NUS.
Because his few scenes are no more than re-enactments of actual events, Kay Tong’s portrayal of LKY is as affected as it gets. It is less an interpretation of the role than an imitation of LKY himself, in that even the hotly anticipated scene where he mimics LKY breaking down on national TV would arguably be no less compelling than if it were replaced by actual TV footage readily available on the Internet or in our national archives. The same can be said of the rest of the cast, who try to make the best out of their thinly written roles. Qi’s acting has long been criticised for being wooden, but he emotes much more convincingly here than in his previous bigscreen roles. Despite the over-the-top tendencies of the filmmakers, Yusoff manages to inject some much-needed nuance into her role as a bereaved mother. Seah brings a suitably brash edge to his character, and he shares perhaps one of the most moving scenes with Peh when the latter confronts him with the repercussions of his actions.
And yet even their committed performances can’t quite lift the material from its own tedium, that combines a generally unengaging story with dull, or worse, clumsy execution and preachy moralistic overtones that better suit an officious historical account than a supposed work of dramatic fiction. It couldn’t have been easy to fashion a movie around Singapore’s independence – not to mention one that has the “SG50” stamp of approval from the authorities – and there are evident traces of that ambition onscreen, such as the true-to-life sets constructed for the outdoor filming and the sheer number of extras employed to depict the riot scenes; yet, that ambition has not itself translated into a film of much filmmaking merit, be it in plot, character or just plain mise-en-scène. ‘1965’ is, after all that hype, sadly and rather hugely underwhelming, if not for anything than a squandered chance to mine our country’s vivid history into something equally compelling for the big screen.
Movie Rating:
(An ambitious – but ultimately vain – attempt to weave a compelling piece of fiction from a vivid slice of history, this dramatically inert and overtly preachy drama is no better than an officious pseudo-documentary)
Review by Gabriel Chong
|
Class of "1965"Posted on 28 Jul 2015 |
SYNOPSIS: Nine-year-old Max runs away from home and sails across the sea to become king of the land "Where the Wild Things Are." King Max rules a wondrous realm of gigantic fuzzy monsters – but being king may not be as carefree as it looks! Filmmaker Spike Jonze directs a magical, visually astonishing film version of Maurice Sendak’s celebrated children’s classic, starring an amazing cast of screen veterans and featuring young Max Records in a fierce and sensitive performance as Max. Explore the joyous, complicated and wildly imaginative wild rumpus of the time and place we call childhood.
MOVIE REVIEW:
Yes, this is the movie which Singapore never got to see in the theatres because, err, the distributor felt that it would not create mass appeal amongst local audiences. Which simply means, the movie would not make money if it was given a big screen release like, err, a commercially viable movie which features loud and in your face car chases and explosions.
Sure. If they say so.
Over at our humble movie website, we are just glad that this gleefully wicked adaptation of the well loved children’s book by American writer and illustrator Maurice Sendak has found its way to DVD (we don’t advocate online downloads although we are pretty sure many of you reading this has a copy somewhere in your computer). Before this becomes an opinion piece about anything but the review of this fantastic film, let’s move on to why it warrants your attention.
Based on the 1963 children’s book of the same name, the story has its protagonist Max running away from home after several upsetting episodes in his adolescent life. Wearing his wolf costume, he travels to a world inhabited by a group of large beasts simply known as “wild things”. It is there the boy (who threw a boyish tantrum earlier at home) will be crowned king and will be expected to solve all the problems plaguing the wild things. And thanks to the genius filmmaker Spike Jonze, we are brought on a wondrous visual journey where the power of imagination blends seamlessly with very real human (and for that matter, adult) themes. Considering Jonze’s filmography which includes the intelligently wacky Being John Malkovich (1999) and Adaptation (2002), you should expect nothing less than an uncompromisingly creative visualization of the award winning bestseller.
First, the creatures created by The Jim Henson Company would awe you. Expect to pay attention to the details of these specially made costumes donned by actors. Every element from the visually arresting horns and claws to the standout strands of hair is an extraordinary magnificence to gawk at. Jonze has not bowed down to cutesy creatures or worse still, entirely animated beasts to appeal to conventional expectations, and the result is a joy for the eyes.
While the source may be a children’s book (even so, academics have commented on Sendak’s portrayal of psychological anger and colonialism), this film adaptation is anything but straightforwardly wholesome. Themes of antagonism, resentment, jealousy and distrust are inspirationally depicted in the screenplay co penned by Jonze and Dave Eggers (Away We Go).
And yes, everyone loves an adorably cute child actor. Here we have Max Records (The Brothers Bloom) taking on the role of the annoyed little boy who experiences an adventure of self discovery, and you’d be glad to hear that he tackles this character well without coming across as contrived. The ever reliable Catherine Keener (Into the Wild) plays his mum, and manages to evoke empathy with her limited screen time. A star studded cast which includes James Gandolfini, Paul Dano, Forest Whitaker, Chris Cooper and Catherine O’ Hara round up the movie with their earnest voice acting for the wild things.
Do not think that this is one of those disposable and off putting movies which banks on a dreary kid’s tale. Neither is it a wannabe art film made with self indulgence. This is one movie that can spurn endless discussions about relevant human emotions, and we are recommending it to anyone with a heart.
SPECIAL FEATURES:
The Code 3 DVD contains a Series of “Where the Wild Things Are” Shorts by Lance Bangs. The four clips ranging from 50 seconds to five minutes are behind the scenes footages documented by Bangs. While amusing while they lasted, these are rather measly bonus features for such a fantastic movie.
AUDIO/VISUAL:
The movie’s visual transfer is pristine. You can watch it in either English or Thai audio tracks.
MOVIE RATING:
DVD RATING :
Review by John Li
Genre: Drama
Director: Jean-Marc Vallée
Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Naomi Watts, Chris Cooper, Judah Lewis
Runtime: 1 hr 40 mins
Rating: NC16 (Coarse Language And Sexual References)
Released By: Cathay-Keris Films
Official Website: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/demolition/
Opening Day: 14 April 2016
Synopsis: A sympathetic woman (Naomi Watts) and her rebellious son (Judah Lewis) form a strong bond with an investment banker (Jake Gyllenhaal) whose life begins to unravel following the death of his wife (Heather Lind).
Movie Review:
Whether is it in the midst of anger or overcoming grief, everyone is bound to moments in life whereby he/she wants to destroy something. ‘Demolition’ is a dark comedy that features complex, human themes, like the aforementioned urge for destruction, and others such as self-disassembly. The film, with all its heavy themes, is not an easy feat to pull off. However, with a talented director, Jean-Marc Vallée, at helm and an A-list cast, ‘Demolition’ is ensured to be far from being a demolition, like its title.
‘Demolition’ is the story of a successful investment banker, Davis Mitchell (Jake Gyllenhaal), and the emotional struggles he goes through when overcoming grief from losing his wife in a tragic car accident. Adding on to the emotional pain is pressure from his father-in-law, Phil (Chris Cooper), to pull himself together. From series of complaint letters to a vending machine company to the unusual connection he has with the customer service rep, Karen (Naomi Watts), Davis life starts to unravel before him. And with Karen and her son Chris (Judah Lewis) aiding him, Davis starts to rebuild while demolishing the old life he once lived.
With the director of critically acclaimed films such as ‘C.R.A.Z.Y.’, ‘Dallas Buyers Club’ and ‘Wild’ at helm, audiences know going in that ‘Demolition’ will be a thought provoking film that packs a serious emotional punch. And as expected, ‘Demolition’ is exactly that. Jean-Marc Vallée’s masterful directing abilities are evident in this film. Heavy hitting themes may be a bore for some audience members who choose to prefer watching films to be entertained. However, a layer of unpredictability is present throughout the film to keep said audience members engaged. This is due to the unique editing style of jump cuts used by Vallée. Such jump cuts are used commonly for action movies to pump adrenaline and intensity into the film, increasing the pace. However when used here in ‘Demolition’, not only is the same effect achieved but works well for both the heavy scenes, as well as, the comedy. ‘Blink-it-and-you-missed-it’ shots are also heavily utilized for the overall unexpectedness of the film.
Speaking of unexpectedness, right from the opening scene, the film already catches viewers off guard. In less than five minutes of the opening, a seeminly normal conversation between Davis and his wife,Julia (Heather Lind), qucikly spirals into tragic accident. The next moments are the first use of jump cut editting, with quick flashes of shots and a steady lull of a heart beats. From this moment on, audiences know that they are in for unique ride and eagerly await the next scene. Whether the afroementioned ‘flashes’ moments are in the script or not, applause must be given to the writer, Bryan Sipe for his boldness to start directly with such shock value.
Sipe’s script is already filled with metaphors. In addition to these metaphorical elements, Vallée places visual metaphors throughout the entire film. This led to the film beating you over the head with them, which may be a put off to some viewers. Some of these metaphors are unrealized while others seem to be over the top. Technicolor warm tones in the hospital scenes and contrasting cold tones in Davis' house scenes, Vallée manages to bring out a cluster of feelings from audiences. This combined with the metaphor allowed the audiences to go through a wave of emotions.
It is very evident that everyone working on the film is very passionate about it. This is especially evident in the actors. Despite Jake Gyllenhaal playing a similar role to his character in ‘Southpaw’- a widower attempting to get his life back in order, Davis Mitchell is a far more complex character. Unlike his ‘Southpaw’ role, whereby heavy emphasis is on physique, playing Davis Mitchell requires more emotion. Portraying a character undergoing a mental breakdown is a tough job, one that Gyllenhaal succeeds in. On paper, his character may seem to be unrelatable and even dislikable. That’s where Gyllenhaal utilizes his talents in making Davis one who the audience supports. There is a certain vulnerability from Davis Mitchell that audiences sympathizes with and such credit must be given to Gyllenhaal. Along with his role in ‘Nightcrawler’, it is safe to say, Gyllenhaal is one of the best working actors presently. As Davis’ father in law, Phil, Chris Cooper gives an excellent performance. With the advice, “If you wanna fix something, you gotta take it apart and figure out what's important”, Phil wants essentially the one who sets Davis on the path of demolition. Phil may come across as a more relatable character than Davis. This is due to not everyone has through a mental breakdown and it is understandable why Phil is undergoing such frustration. Cooper’s performance manages to convey to viewers Phil’s love for his daughter and his son in law.
Naomi Watts does a fine job as Karen. Karen is the only character in the film that fully empathizes with Davis and supports him. Their chemistry is present in their relationship, which makes it believable. However, due to both Karen and Davis are characters that are not necessarily mentally stable; many would compare their relationship to a relationship in David O Russell’s ‘Silver Linings Playbook’. Other subplots in the film also bare a few similarities with Silver Linings. This leads me to one of my gripes about the film is that how similar it is to other movies. Other than ‘Silver Linings Playbook’, there is a bit of ‘American Psycho’ vibe coming off Davis’ character. This may trick audiences into thinking that the film may go the route of psychopathy. But the film did not and ended up being a really human film. One more thing that stands out in the film is the soundtrack. As mentioned before, this film is made with passion and in the music choices it clearly shows. The song choices are brilliant and suit the scenes when used. This adds plausibility to ‘Demolition’ and its characters.
The entire film could be said to be a hidden metaphor by itself. The comedy in the film not only acts as breathers but also highlights how in life, there are moments of joy and sadness. Different types of camera movements used shows how our viewpoints may change throughout the course of life. This makes the film a very deep one. One that may make you reflects upon your life while different emotion evoke from within you. However, the complex themes and heavy bombardment of metaphors will make ‘Demolition’ a film not for everyone and a though watch for some.
Movie Rating:
(An unpredicatable and profound perfomance-driven ride heavy handed with metaphors, 'Demolition' may not be made for all, but there should be little doubt that Jake Gyllenhaal is one of the best actors working today)
Review by Celestine Pang
Genre: War/Action
Director: Andrew Niccol
Cast: Ethan Hawke, January Jones, Zoë Kravitz, Bruce Greenwood, Jake Abel, Peter Coyote, Alma Sisneros, Alma Sisneros
Runtime: 1 hr 42 mins
Rating: NC-16 (Coarse Language and Sexual Scenes)
Released By: Cathay-Keris Films
Official Website: http://www.ifcfilms.com/films/good-kill
Opening Day: 28 May 2015
Synopsis: In the shadowy world of drone warfare, combat unfolds like a video game-only with real lives at stake. After six tours of duty, Air Force pilot Tom Egan (Ethan Hawke) yearns to get back into the cockpit of a real plane, but he now fights the Taliban from an air-conditioned box in the Las Vegas desert. When he and his crew start taking orders directly from the CIA, and the stakes are raised, Egan's nerves-and his relationship with his wife (Mad Men's January Jones)-begin to unravel. Revealing the psychological toll drone pilots endure as they are forced to witness the aftermath of their fight against insurgents, Andrew Niccol (Gattaca, Lord of War) directs this riveting insider's view of 21st-century warfare, in which operatives target enemies from half a world away.
Movie Review:
Joining the ranks of Kathryn Bigelow and Clint Eastwood is Andrew Niccol, whose latest film based on the War on Terror ranks as one of the more important ones you should see. Unlike the former’s ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ or ‘The Hurt Locker’, Niccol takes aim (pardon the pun) at a very specific topic that has been the subject of much controversy especially in recent years, that of drone warfare. For the uninitiated, that refers to the use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) commandeered remotely by pilots thousands of miles away in air-conditioned bunkers to take down hostiles right on their very own soil, which basically turns modern warfare into the equivalent of a video game and reduces human casualties to pixels on a screen.
Major Thomas Egan (Ethan Hawke) is one such pilot, who after six tours of flying F-16s, is now assigned to 12-hour shifts flying a UAV over Afghanistan from a military base just outside of Las Vegas under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Jack Johns (Bruce Greenwood). As the opening credits roll, we see what Thomas does through his viewfinder, just before he is given the order to reduce it all to dust and rubble. It’s a good kill all right, and indeed there is no doubt Thomas is excellent at what he does. And yet, the very fact that he has just asked Colonel Johns to be deployed for another tour of duty despite having family (January Jones is Thomas’ wife, Molly) and an imminent promotion suggests that there must be something alienating, or even unsettling, about his latest assignment.
Accelerating his gradual unravelling is the entry of the CIA, who are vested with the resources of the Air Force at their disposal to act on the intelligence they have. Protocol states that their team is only supposed to obey and execute but not to question the soundness of the CIA’s orders. Yet it isn’t just his rookie co-pilot Suarez (Zoe Kravitz) who is distressed by the nature of their CIA-sanctioned missions, so too is Thomas’ own commanding officer himself. Case in point? The CIA orders the bombing of a funeral for the victims of an earlier strike which they had earlier gave “permission to prosecute”; likewise for the rescue workers who flock to the scene of an earlier explosion.
It’s not hard to sieve out the shaky moral and strategic grounds of his missions – non-combatants killed in the name of collateral damage, assessments based not just on known identities but also unknowns with a discernible “pattern of behaviour”, and the perpetuation of a vicious cycle of hate and killings. Niccol trusts his audience to make their own judgments about the use of drone warfare – aside from the fact that it minimises the loss of American lives in combat – as well as the more controversial topic of the CIA’s involvement in military missions. Contrary to what one may expect, Niccol doesn’t condemn the mechanics of the warfare he portrays; as Colonel Johns points out, he would be equally hard-pressed to explain to a grieving mother why he had not acted when he could to prevent the death of her son in combat.
There are no easy answers to the dilemmas Niccol poses; on the other hand, what is unequivocally portrayed here is the mental and emotional costs of remote-control warfare on the people who are called to play it. Yes, like ‘Sniper’, this is a character study of the desensitising toll that war exerts on one of its subjects – and in this regard, Ethan Hawke gives a fantastically nuanced performance as the tortured soul. His Thomas Egan is a man of few words, who in fact goes quieter as he gets angrier, but even so, there is no doubting the inner turmoil that he is hiding beneath that calm veneer. How that affects his own sense of self as well as his marriage is intimately played out over the course of the film, and Hawke earns our strong sympathy with a genuinely affecting turn.
Niccol has surrounded Hawke with equally strong supporting performers, especially the ever-reliable Greenwood, who projects both authority and empathy as his superior who is fully aware of the thin line that they skate between the rules of engagement and cold-blooded assassination. And as both the writer and director of this riveting thriller, Niccol deserves praise for what is surely one of his best works to date. From ‘Gattaca’ to ‘S1mone’ to even the critically derided ‘In Time’ and ‘The Host’, Niccol has had a consistent interest in the impact that technology has on our humanity, and he explores that even more satisfyingly here than in any of his previous science-fiction works.
Though set half a decade ago, ‘Good Kill’ is an extremely timely film, one that meditates not just on the moral ambiguities of modern warfare but also the psychological costs of killing by remote control on the individuals who are tasked to do it. Unlike most other war movies, it doesn’t have a single scene of combat, but there is plenty of tension in the cramped, almost claustrophobic, trailer inside which Thomas and his fellow teammates receive and carry out their missions. Oh yes, it is riveting all right, that keeps your pulse racing while it tugs persuasively at your conscience.
Movie Rating:
(Ethan Hawke’s nuanced and sensitive turn anchors a riveting exploration of the morally ambiguous and psychologically damaging effects of remote-control warfare)
Review by Gabriel Chong
|
AWARD-WINNING DIRECTOR DUO - SUNNY LOK AND LONGMAN LEUNG - BREAK BOX OFFICE RECORD WITH THEIR LATEST BLOCKBUSTER "HELIOS"Posted on 04 May 2015 |
Genre: Comedy
Director: Derek Kwok, Henri Wong
Cast: Ekin Cheng, Josie Ho, Ronald Cheng, Edmond Leung, Wilfred Lau, Tse Kwan-ho, Susan Siu, Andrew Lam, Eric Kwok, Matt Chow, Vincent Kok, Michael Tse, Wang Lin, Bao Chunlai
Runtime: 1 hr 48 mins
Rating: NC-16 (Coarse Language)
Released By: Golden Village Pictures and Clover Films
Official Website:
Opening Day: 14 May 2015
Synopsis: Once an elite badminton player renowned for her killer instinct on the court, the fiery Ng Kau-sau (Josie Ho) has been living aimlessly since she injured an opponent and was expelled from the sport a decade ago. Since then, Sau has been holed up in her family’s poon choi restaurant, handling its daily chores while having completely given up on maintaining her own fitness. The dust is temporarily settled ? or so it seems until the day Sau comes across Wong Fei-fung, the hottest badminton player at the moment. But just as she is contemplating suicide after being publicly humiliated and beaten up, Sau meets a quartet of eccentric characters who appear to come straight out of a martial arts novel: they are the Drunken Master (Andrew Lam), the one-armed Lam Chiu (Edmond Leung), the amblyopic Ma Kwan (Wilfred Lau), and their scar-faced and hearing impaired leader Lau Dan (Ekin Cheng). Though the four of them used to be notorious robbers a dozen years ago, they have all led a new life since their release from prison, forming the ‘Lau Dan Badminton Club’ in the process. As they reacquaint Sau to the glory of the badminton game, she revives her fighting spirit to enter an amateur badminton tournament organized by a television station. Initially put off by the history of Dan and his pals, Sau is soon touched by their sincerity and perseverance; she doesn’t only team up with them, but has also fallen for Dan. On the eve of the tournament, Dan and co are mistaken for suspects of a new case of robbery and become the city’s most wanted once again. As they face the prospects of disqualification, can Sau and Dan salvage the chance to showcase the fruit of their intense training ? a secret move they call “Full Strike”?
Movie Review:
Full Strike is a weird infusion of a sports theme and martial arts movie. In spite of two very familiar genres, the end product is definitely not something that is accepted by the mass audiences.
Derek Kwok and Henri Wong co-wrote and co-direct this madcap comedy about a bunch of misfits trying to restart their lives by focusing on something which they never excel at - Badminton. Ex-cons Lau Dan (Ekin Cheng), Lam Chiu (Edmond Leung) and Ma Kwun (Wilfred Lau) were once dangerous criminals but now they are just plain ordinary folks running a badminton club at a run-down premise. Their luck changes for the better when the once Queen of Hong Kong badminton, Ng Sau Kau (Josie Ho) decides to join them.
It might sound simplistic on paper but Kwok’s absurd brand of nonsensical humour is far richer on the screen. Almost all of the characters introduced seem to be a walking Looney tune character of sort. For example, Ng who stumbled into a long period of depression after being disqualified for her John McEnroe’s outburst manage to regain her motivation after witnessing a shuttlecock like meteor hitting the ground. It’s equally preposterous and bizarre though you can’t deny it’s a hoot.
Lam Chiu on the other hand is a one-hand sportsman; Ma Kwan is apparently as blind as a bat while Lau Dan’s temper is horrifying when he lost it. Wait there’s more to come. The trio’s master, once champion of the sport, Chik (musician Andrew Lam) is a drunk and their competitor comes in the form of Suck Nipple Cheung (yup that’s what the English translation says), a local bully and Ng’s cousin played by Ronald Cheng.
There’s never a dull moment even if you find the plotting impossible to follow. Kwok’s mo-lei-tau humour resembles Stephen Chow in his later acting/directing career which explained why he was chosen to co-direct Chow’s Journey to the West: Conquering the Demons. The dialogue is often witty and the physical humour is plain wicked especially a projectile vomiting sequence courtesy of Chik.
Even though Kwok has already pay homage to the martial-arts genre with his acclaimed Gallants, he has no qualms instilling them once again in Full Strike. Montage of the characters training in badminton is almost similar to watching kung fu apprentices in their daily training session. You will be surprised to watch how Lam Chiu and Ma Kwan team up in the end to play doubles which is heavily borrowed from kung fu moves.
Despite the wackiness of the script, the climax of the movie is hinder by a subplot in which Lau, Lam and Ma is involved in a triad fight. It’s basically an unnecessary convoluted turn of event in which the intensity of the match is diluted. In addition to the disappointment, Suck Nipple Cheung’s badassness is also forgotten in an instant.
Full Strike comes equipped with a slew of familiar HK actors and actresses including veteran actress Siu Yam Yam as Grandma Mui, stage actor Tse Kwan-Hoas Ng’s brother, a cameo by what-happen-to-her-Grace-Yip and decent production values. The comic timing of the cast is spot-on and the badminton matches are staged with surprising power and tension. In conclusion, you can’t deny Full Strike pales in comparison to Chow’s Shaolin Soccer but still a way better effort than Jay Chou’s awful Kung Fu Dunk.
Movie Rating:
(Full Strike brought back memories of the good old days of HK comedy)
Review by Linus Tee
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Director: Lluís Quílez
Cast: Julia Stiles, Scott Speedman, Pixie Davies, Alejandro Furth, Stephen Rea
Runtime: 1 hr 34 mins
Rating: NC-16 (Horror)
Released By: Shaw
Official Website:
Opening Day: 21 May 2015
Synopsis: Sarah Harriman (Julia Stiles), her husband Paul (Scott Speedman) and their six-year old daughter Hannah (Pixie Davies) arrive in Colombia eager and excited to start a new life, as Sarah prepares to take over management of the family’s paper mill from her father, Jordan (Stephen Rea). Settling into a sprawling old mansion, the Harrimans are fascinated to learn about the village’s ancestral lore and traditions, including the tale of the Niños Santos, a group of children martyred by the Conquistadors centuries ago. Even today, the ghosts of the murdered innocents are blamed for any unexplained mischief in the town. The imaginative Hannah begins to explore her new home, wandering into the jungle in pursuit of playmates no else can see. The child’s behavior continues to grow stranger until she falls inexplicably ill. As her parents struggle to find medical care in the remote town, the house is visited by a series of mysterious apparitions and suddenly Hannah vanishes. Sarah and Paul’s frantic search for their lost daughter plunges them into a shadowy supernatural world where they discover the shocking family secret that is at the heart Hannah’s disappearance. To save their daughter, they will have to find a way to make amends for the sins of the past.
Movie Review:
Dead children make scary ghosts. That’s a fact that recent horror films like ‘The Orphanage’, ‘The Others’ and ‘Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark’ proved, so there’s really nothing that ‘Out of the Dark’, whose poltergeists are also dead children, offers up that we haven’t yet seen. What Spanish director Lluis Quilez does do with his Colombia-shot ghost thriller is transplant these horror tropes from such classics to an exotic location, and in doing so serves up a gripping mystery that will keep you hooked throughout its relatively brief 93 minutes.
The setup is nothing fanciful – a married couple, Paul and Sarah Harriman (played by Scott Speedman and Julia Stiles respectively), along with their young daughter Hannah (Pixie Davies), move to Santa Clara in order that the latter may take up a position in her father’s (Stephen Rea) company. Yet, as a prologue set twenty years ago informs, the house is haunted by the spirits of little children, who make a re-appearance as soon as the family set up residence. Local legend suggests that the ghosts may be linked to an ancient festival known as ‘Los Niños Santos’ (which literally means “The Holy Children” or “Children Saint”), which commemorates the cruelty of the Spanish Conquistadores who had burnt alive the local children some five hundred years ago at a temple site.
As we soon suspect, the legend is no more than red herring – and without revealing any spoilers, let’s just say that it not only has something to do with the person we first see being spooked to his death, as well as Sarah’s father, who is hiding some shady corporate secret from many years before. Though the final reveal won’t come as much of a surprise for horror veterans, Javier Gullon and his two co-writers, David and Alex Pastor, weave a tightly wound mystery around the identity of the bandaged phantoms, especially in keeping their audience guessing just why they are after Hannah in the first place. Suffice to say that it all ties together pretty neatly – even an innocuous game that Paul plays with Hannah every night before she falls asleep turns out to be something meaningful by the end of the appropriately-set climax.
Admirably, Quilez doesn’t resort to jump scares to get a reaction from his audience; instead, he pays attention to build-up, establishing a palpable atmosphere of dread as we wait for something to emerge from the shadows of an elevator shaft or within the bushes that lead into the deep South American jungle or even as we follow a red basketball that emerges out of the blue. Just as wisely, Quilez gets his audience emotionally invested in the story by fully fleshing out the anxiety that both Paul and Sarah face when confronted with the possibility that an unknown evil is after their only daughter. It is also for this reason that, while it may take time for the story to establish itself, Quilez doesn’t leave his audience restless.
Credit also goes to Stiles and Speedman, who turn in better than expected performances for a movie of this calibre and inject a human dimension to the horror; but the real coup here is Rea, whose restrained turn ensures that the late twist does not lose its credibility. The same can be said of this generic but nonetheless effective genre exercise – thanks to some inspired use of location, ‘Out of the Dark’ recycles the usual horror clichés without being derivative, so those looking for a suspenseful horror mystery should find this a satisfying time-filler.
Movie Rating:
(Generic but nonetheless effective horror mystery that recycles the usual tropes of the genre but makes good use of its exotic Colombian locations to amp up the suspense)
Review by Gabriel Chong
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Director: Leigh Whannell
Cast: Dermot Mulroney, Stefanie Scott, Lin Shaye, Hayley Kiyoko, Leigh Whannell, Michael Reid MacKay, Angus Sampson, Ashton Moio, Tate Berney
Runtime: 1 hr 37 mins
Rating: PG13 (Horror)
Released By: Sony Pictures Releasing International
Official Website: https://www.facebook.com/InsidiousMovie
Opening Day: 6 June 2015
Synopsis: A prequel set before the haunting of the Lambert family that reveals how gifted psychic Elise Rainier reluctantly agrees to use her ability to contact the dead in order to help a teenage girl who has been targeted by a dangerous supernatural entity.
Movie Review:
Rather than go Further with the ‘lipstick-face Demon’, otherwise known as the ‘Fire-Face Demon’, co-creator Leigh Whannell takes the ‘Insidious’ franchise to the next chapter by going back in time to explore the origins of the psychic Elise Rainier (reprised by Lin Shaye). ‘Chapter 3’ is therefore set before the haunting of the Lambert family, way before that in fact, when Elise was in semi-retirement mode after being tagged by an evil spirit of her own. So when 15-year-old Quinn Brenner (Stephanie Scott) knocks on her door asking for help to contact her deceased mother, Elise turns her down at first, though she eventually relents and uses her powers to try and communicate with Lillith, whom Quinn claims has been reaching out to her the past few nights.
As you can probably guess, it isn’t Lillith that Elise realises has been trying to establish contact with Quinn, which leads Elise to issue a grave warning. “You have to be very careful,” Elise cautions. “If you call out to one of the dead, all of them can hear you.” Unfortunately for Quinn, it is already too late to simply walk away from the entity which has been masquerading as her mother and that is waiting to possess her body entirely. In fact, it only becomes clear that the entity has nothing other than malevolence on its mind – and after being the cause of an accident that causes Quinn to break one of her legs, the entity makes its presence even more obvious by appearing in form in Quinn’s bedroom and subsequently dragging her out of bed or off her wheelchair to his lair upstairs.
Like the first chapter, Whannell uses a hapless protagonist to draw in his audience’s sympathies; and whereas that person were the young boy Dalton who lay in a coma while his soul was imprisoned in the Further, it is the wheelchair-bound Quinn whose life we fear for here. Taking over Patrick Wilson’s role of the helpless parent here is Delmot Mulroney, who depends on Quinn to look after her younger brother Alex (Tate Berney) and is left struggling to come to terms with the supernatural events that are afflicting his family. Unlike Wilson’s character however, Sean (Mulroney) isn’t gifted – or cursed, depending on which way you look at it – to enter into the Further, but Whannell gives him the honour of being the one who first makes the connection between Quinn’s hauntings and the abandoned apartment unit directly above theirs.
Frankly, there isn’t anything novel that Whannell conjures here which we haven’t already seen or seen better of in the first two James Wan-directed chapters. Indeed, those who are well acquainted with Wan’s brand of horror will know that he is a master of choreographed tension, which was largely why Chapters One and Two were so edge-of-your-seat gripping. On the other hand, Whannell displays no such faculty in his directorial debut, relying largely on soundtrack cues to get a jolt out of his audience. Yes, whereas its predecessors were masterclasses in dread and suspense, this latest chapter hardly gets under your skin at all, lacking in the sort of carefully choreographed sequences which Wan excelled in.
But perhaps the most damning critique we have of Whannell’s chapter is how it really is no more than a dull retread of Wan’s superior entries. His vision of the Further isn’t much scarier than a haunted house in an amusement park, and doesn’t get much more imaginative than that as well – and if you must know, looks exactly as how you may picture the apartment building if every one of its tenants started smoking weed and getting high. His so-called finale is in fact a sequence that was much better executed by Wan in the first chapter, i.e. when Elise calls for a séance together with the rest of the members of the afflicted’s family and journeys into the Further in order to rescue the soul of the living trapped by one of the dead. It is one thing to remain faithful to an artistic vision already articulated, and quite another to reproduce it slavishly; unfortunately, Whannell happens to do most of the latter and too little of the former here.
Even as an origin story of sorts for Elise, Whannell’s film falls short. Yes, it does explain just who the old woman that was terrorising Josh Lambert (or Patrick Wilson’s character) is – even before she had her eye on Josh, she had already latched herself onto Elise. It does also explain just how Elise came to form a professional relationship with Specs (Whannell) and Tucker (Angus Sampson), the two gadgets-savvy ghostbusters who were seen in the first chapter assisting Elise and in the second avenging her death. And yet, neither of these backstories add anything more that we care about to the ‘Insidious’ mythology, such that this chapter feels no more than a placeholder for something much more substantial to come.
Whether that eventually materialises remains to be seen, since it is clear at the end of this chapter that Whannell is keen to continue the franchise by further exploring the supernatural exploits of Elise, Specs and Tucker. Yet if this chapter is anything to go by, Wan and Whannell should just have stopped at the last chapter. Not only does it feel dull and repetitive, especially if you’ve seen its predecessors, ‘Insidious: Chapter 3’ isn’t at any point genuinely scary, relying less on a careful buildup of tension to get the most out of a moment than bursting that moment in our faces with a loud shriek or music cue. Like we said at the beginning, it doesn’t quite take the franchise forward; instead, one may even argue that it moves it backward both literally and metaphorically, a shadow of what the first two chapters were. If you’re a fan, we’d advise you to stay away, for there is only disappointment waiting in this part of the Further.
Movie Rating:
(Little more than a dull and uninspired retread of the first two chapters, this third instalment doesn't so much venture into the Further than take the 'Insidious' franchise backwards into mediocrity)
Review by Gabriel Chong
|
NED RIFLE at THE PROJECTORPosted on 06 May 2015 |
| « Prev | 233 | 234 | 235 | 236 | 237 | 238 | 239 | 240 | 241 | 242 | 243 | Next » |
Most Viewed
No content.