And why wouldn’t anyone know what Frozen is? The 53rd Disney animated feature movie was released in 2013 and it has been watched so many times that countless kids know the songs from the soundtrack by heart. You probably know someone who sings the songs (“Let It Go” being the favourite anthem) again and again at every opportunity.
Four years later, the gang from Arendelle is back with this short film directed by Kevin Deters and Stevie Wermers. The premise is simple: Elsa laments that she and Anna have been unable to spend holiday traditions with each other because she has been isolating herself for a long time, and Olaf decides to go hunting for traditions.
Is there enough material to produce a soundtrack album? Apparently so - because this CD with 25 minutes of music is released, and is expected to sell like hot cakes during the festive season.
Elyssa Samsel and Kate Anderson pen four original songs and they echo the style of the immensely popular Frozen soundtrack. “Ring in the Season” is the big opening number performed by the ensemble cast, “The Ballad of Flemmingrad” is the slightly comical song crooned by Kristoff, “That Time of Year” is Olaf’s show tune, while “When We’re Together” is the warm and fuzzy finale cue to wrap things up.
Kristen Bell and Idina Menzel (who will be providing voice cameos as Anna and Elsa in the sequel to Wreck It Ralph in 2018), together with Josh Gad (who also sang on the Beauty and the Beast soundtrack) and Jonathan Groff (American Sniper) reprise their roles from Frozen, and do a good job to make the favourite time of the year come alive.
There is also a “Olaf’s Frozen Adventure” score suite composed by Christophe Beck (Muppets Most Wanted) and Jeff Morrow, as well as karaoke mix tracks of the four songs for those who want to sing their hearts out this festive season. If you are an adult who finds this Frozen phenomenon annoying, don't be a Scrooge - it's the time to be jolly!
ALBUM RATING:
Recommended Track: (6) When We're Together
Review by John Li
Genre: Comics/Action
Director: James Gunn
Cast: Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, featuring Vin Diesel as Groot, Bradley Cooper as Rocket, Michael Rooker, Karen Gillan, Pom Klementieff, Elizabeth Debicki, Chris Sullivan, Sean Gunn, Tommy Flanagan, Laura Haddock, with Sylvester Stallone, Kurt Russell
Runtime: 2 hrs 16 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence)
Released By: The Walt Disney Company
Official Website:
Opening Day: 27 April 2017
Synopsis: Set to the all-new sonic backdrop of Awesome Mixtape #2, Marvel’s “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2” continues the team’s adventures as they traverse the outer reaches of the cosmos. The Guardians must fight to keep their newfound family together as they unravel the mystery of Peter Quill’s true parentage. Old foes become new allies and fan-favorite characters from the classic comics will come to our heroes’ aid as the Marvel Cinematic Universe continues to expand.
Movie Review:
‘Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2’ kicks off with a brilliant opening-credits sequence that follows the incredibly adorable Baby Groot bopping and dancing to ELO’s jaunty ‘Mr Blue Sky’ while the rest of the Guardians – the smart-alecky Peter Quill aka Star-Lord (Chris Pratt), fierce warrior Gamora (Zoe Saldana), straight-talking tattooed muscleman Drax (Dave Bautista) and irascible Rocket (Bradley Cooper) – battle an outsized tentacled monster in the background. It is about as creative, inspired and delightful as anything that has come out of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) so far, and for a while at least, makes you think that this follow-up to one of the most enjoyable comic-book movies in recent years would meet, or even surpass, the sky-high expectations inevitably set by its predecessor.
Alas it doesn’t take long for you to realise that Vol.2 is hardly as light on its feet, quick on its wit or swift in its moves as Vol 1. To his credit, returning writer-director James Gunn doesn’t follow conventional wisdom by forcing the very ragtag band of space heroes apart right after bringing them together; instead, Gunn deepens the individual character storylines by forcing each one of his bunch of misfits to deal with their daddy, mommy and sister issues. That is hardly a bad thing per se – in fact, one scene where Star-Lord and Baby Groot cozy up while listening to Cat Stevens’ ‘Father and Son’ ranks as one of the most emotionally poignant moments in any MCU movie thus far – but Gunn struggles to balance his characters’ insecurities and emotional scars at the heart of the picture with the demands of spectacle-driven blockbuster storytelling as well as a sheer number of players jostling for time and significance.
To be sure, Peter remains the stalwart focus of the narrative. It is his long-lost birth father Ego (Kurt Russell) who pops up all of a sudden to save him and his comrades from the pursuit of an elitist and vindictive race known as The Sovereign. It is their genealogy that has led Ego to search out Peter, in order to impart vast knowledge and powers so that they can rule the world together. And last but not least, it is Peter’s adopted father Yondu (Michael Rooker) who shows up to save the day, getting the opportunity in the process to restore the dignity he lost from his brotherhood of Ravagers for trafficking child slaves. Oh yes, it all ties together and around Peter, including the third-act plotting that turns one of the key supporting characters into a villain for a long and protracted action-packed finale. But between that and evading annihilation by the Sovereign, there is enough – arguably too much – subplot and supporting characters here to fill a dozen galaxies.
Among the strands in the B plot: Gamora’s feud with her artificially enhanced sister Nebula (Karen Gillan) stemming from their father Thanos pitting one sister against the other during their younger day; Drax's friendly and possible romantic rapport with Ego’s Empath assistant Mantis (Pom Klementieff); Rocket’s abrasiveness that Yondu calls out point-blank as a fear of getting close to anyone; and last but not least Peter and Gamora’s budding romance which the latter resists for fear of jeopardising the Guardians. As you may expect, not all of these largely distinct threads are developed or resolved as satisfactorily as one another, but juggling them causes not only the movie to lose momentum during the first half but also come off disjointed. Though the various character arcs do eventually pay off, there is no disguising that the back-and-forth among the multitude comes at the expense of cohesive and compelling plotting, which is almost exercised only expediently to justify yet another big-budget action setpiece.
It certainly doesn’t help that it is altogether less fun than the original. The bickering and bantering among the motley crew is still hugely entertaining - especially Drax’s tell-it-as-it-is dour deadpan – but somewhat diluted in the second act when the team splits up, in order that Rocket fix their spaceship while Star-Lord, Gamora and Drax explore Ego’s home-world. The bombastic action is even heavier on humour than previously, and while certain bits like Rocket teaching Baby Groot to detonate a bomb crucial for their survival is genuinely amusing, the surreal psychedelic sci-fi computer-generated visuals is pretty to look at but often does not amount to anything thrilling. And though the soundtrack picks of just-obscure-enough 70s and 80s still work exceptionally well in carrying the plot along or emphasising its emotional beats, Gunn stuffs too many of them together at the start to try to smooth over the film’s obvious pacing and rhythm issues.
For all its shortcomings though, there is still plentiful bits to enjoy. As we’ve said, the chemistry between our main heroes is still solid, but what stands out too this time round is the dynamic between Star-Lord and Ego (at least before their relationship goes south to serve larger narrative obligations), that between Gamora and Nebula, and that between Drax and Mantis – Pratt and Russell share a nice father-son ritual playing catch with a magical glowing orb; Saldana and Gillan play well off each other; and Bautista gets to share some tender scene-stealing moments with Klementieff. There are also nice inventive touches here and there – such as how the Sovereign engage in battle with the Guardians behind video game-like stations on the mothership, or how Yondu takes out an entire ship of his mutinous companions with a floating arrow that he controls by whistling. Gunn also deserves credit for never over-using Baby Groot, which makes his big moments (one particularly memorable one has him fumbling his task of retrieving Yondu’s fin so as to break Yondu and Rocket out of prison) even more enchanting.
Whether Vol 2 lives up to expectation depends really on where your expectation lies. Because we hardly knew what to expect before, Vol. 1 was privileged with the element of surprise; on the other hand, the same quirks that made Vol. 1 such an unexpected crowdpleaser are still present here, though inevitably not as fresh and therefore as charming as before. The decision to focus on character growth and conflict is admirable, but there is not enough of a plot to hold all of them together in the same movie, let alone accommodate the big-screen violence and mayhem that its status as an MCU movie beholds it to. Of the action too, there is a lot happening at the same time but paradoxically too little to hold our interest, saved only by the wise-cracking Rocket and the irresistibly cute Baby Groot. As the middle-child in what will be a trilogy, you’ll be left hanging with not one, not two but five post-credits scenes as well as last-minute cameos by Sylvester Stallone, Ving Rhames and Michelle Yeoh as fellow Ravagers. If Vol. 1 had raised the bar somewhat sky-high, Vol. 2 definitely brings the bar down – that isn’t a bad thing for Vol. 3, but nonetheless makes Vol. 2 underwhelming and somewhat disappointing.
Movie Rating:
![](\"http://www.moviexclusive.com/image/mx%20star.gif\")
![](\"http://www.moviexclusive.com/image/half%20mx%20star.gif\")
(The soundtrack is still earwormy, the visuals are still psychedelic, and the chemistry is still strong, but too little plot, too many character diversions, and too much CGI bloat makes Vol. 2 less delightful, witty or thrilling than its predecessor)
Review by Gabriel Chong
Genre: Drama
Director: Kenneth Lonergan
Cast: Casey Affleck, Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler, Lucas Hedges, Gretchen Mol, C.J. Wilson
Runtime: 2 hrs 18 mins
Rating: NC16 (Coarse Language and Some Sexual References)
Released By: UIP
Official Website: http://manchesterbytheseathemovie.com
Opening Day: 16 February 2017
Synopsis: Manchester by the Sea tells the story of the Chandler family, a working class family from Massachusetts. After Lee’s (Casey Affleck) older brother Joe (Kyle Chandler) suddenly passes away, he is made the legal guardian of his nephew (Lucas Hedges). Lee is forced to deal with a tragic past that separated him from his wife Randi (Michelle Williams) and the community where he was born and raised.
Movie Review:
Next to ‘La La Land’, ‘Manchester by the Sea’ is probably the odds-on favourite to win Best Picture of the Year, with its leading man Casey Affleck tipped to finally get that Best Actor recognition after no less impressive turns in ‘The Assassination of Jesse James by the Great Robert Ford’ and ‘Gone Baby Gone’. As grounded as the former is flamboyant, Kenneth Lonergan’s masterful third film as writer and director is a sobering – but never sombre or solemn – portrait of grief, death and coping, built around Affleck’s wounded and brooding Lee Chandler, who is summoned back from Boston to his Massachusetts seaside hometown of Manchester by the Sea following the death of his older brother Joe (Kyle Chandler). Lee accepts the news stoically, but it is clear that he is tamping something down, and over the course of the next two-and-a half hours, we will learn of Joe’s former demons while he struggles to come to terms with the fact that he’s been made sole guardian of Joe’s only teenage son Patrick (Lucas Hedges) whom he has not seen for some years now.
It should be said from the onset that ‘Manchester’ offers few grand, sweeping moments; rather, Lonergan eschews the Hollywood playbook in favour of honest, sincere and authentic minutiae. While waiting for the ground to thaw so that they can bury Joe, Lee has to decide whether to stay in Manchester which Patrick clearly favours or move back to Boston which he prefers but make Patrick re-locate in the process. That same decision weighs on Patrick too – given that he will be physically separated from his two girlfriends – so in addition to arguing with Lee over the impending move, he even reaches out to his estranged mother Elise (Gretchen Mol) to see if she would take him in instead. In between the days waiting for spring, Lee and Patrick navigate their newfound relationship, the former making the decisions around Joe’s house (like whether Patrick gets to bring his friends over) and taking care of Patrick as Joe would (like driving Patrick to and fro one of his girlfriend’s place). It isn’t drama for dramatic sake Lonergan that is after, but seemingly simple and mundane events that add up to a nuanced understanding of these characters as well as their dynamics.
At first, ‘Manchester’s’ narrative structure may seem slightly jarring, cutting between the present and the past to show their intersections. The opening scene of Lee clowning around with Joe and a much younger Patrick on board the family fishing boat, the Claudia Marie, follows with a montage of scenes showing Lee in his present situation as a janitor/ handyman in a suburban Boston housing suburb. An early scene of Lee staying over at Joe’s place sits right next to another showing Joe and Patrick coming home to find Elise passed out naked on the sofa. And perhaps most significantly, a procedural meeting with Joe’s appointed attorney administering his will sees Lee relive the horrible memory of what happened to his now ex-wife Randi (Michelle Williams) and three children which led him to leave Manchester-by-the-sea in the first place. Yet there is method to the juxtaposition of the then versus the here and now, the former ultimately enhancing the heft of the latter.
Lonergan’s genius is as much in his intimate depiction of his characters as it is in his fine observation about the nature of life itself. Without giving away what happened to Lee, it suffices to say that not all tragedy comes with the eventual consolation of closure; instead, there are some forms of tragedy that cut so deep we can never hope to recover completely from it at all, so much so that the only way that a person can function again in life is to try to avoid being reminded of it altogether. It is such a pain that Lee carries with him, which is behind his present monastic existence and his outbursts at random strangers after a few beers. It is also that pain which prevents Lee from reciprocating Randi’s attempt at reconciliation, and the same pain which prevents him from ever contemplating a future in Manchester-by-the-sea again. Not often are such difficult emotions presented onscreen without the gratification of resolution at the end, but Lonergan tackles it head-on with an excellent cast that represents one of the best ensemble efforts this year.
Deserving of all that awards-season recognition so far is Affleck, who delivers a perfectly calibrated performance balanced between vulnerability and mettle. His Lee is a man who is adjusted but not necessarily recovered, and Affleck’s tough yet tender portrayal cuts right to the depth of his immense anguish. Most of the action revolves around Lee’s custody of Patrick, and the 20-year-old Hedges is warm and lively as the latter who tries to get on with his life – rocking out with his teen band (amusingly named ‘The Stentorians’) and attempting to get it on with one of his girlfriends behind her intrusive mother’s back – while dealing with the loss of his father and reconnecting with his uncle. Together, Affleck and Hedges give the movie its emotional core, while small but memorable turns by Williams and Chandler further illuminate the humanity and woundedness of these characters as they come to grips with their past and present circumstances and each other.
Much praise has been heaped on ‘Manchester by the Sea’ since its Sundance debut one year ago, and it is indeed worthy of all that accolade. Like we said earlier, this isn’t a film built on big moments, but on the day-to-day, perhaps even insignificant, ones that speak to a bigger picture of overcoming loss, coping with tragedy and finding a way forward. As bleak as that may sound, Lonergan cleverly weaves truly wrenching sequences with welcome sparks of levity, demonstrating yet again that he is one of the most perceptive writer-directors at work today. Oh yes, this is the comeback Lonergan deserves after the ignominy of ‘Margaret’ (which went through a torturous production process before being released in a butchered studio cut) as well as that breakout film for Affleck who has long deserved to be recognised as a leading man in his own right. Don’t go in expecting to be blown away; let ‘Manchester’ work its power on you slowly, subtly but surely, and you’ll come to understand why this is truly an emotional tour-de-force.
Movie Rating:
(An emotional tour-de-force, this portrait of overcoming loss, coping with tragedy and finding a way forward in life is keenly observed and beautifully acted)
Review by Gabriel Chong
|
FIVE THINGS WE FOUND OUT FROM THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR SINGAPORE JUNKETPosted on 17 Apr 2018 |
Genre: Action
Director: Eran Creevy
Cast: Nicholas Hoult, Felicity Jones, Anthony Hopkins, Ben Kingsley, Marwan Kenzari, Aleksandar Jovanovic, Christian Rubeck
Runtime: 1 hr 39 minutes
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence)
Released By: The Walt Disney Company
Official Website:
Opening Day: 23 February 2017
Synopsis: CASEY, a young American backpacker in Germany has fallen in love with JULIETTE, a fellow American travelling through Europe. When she is diagnosed with a fatal disease, Casey decides to steal from German gangster HAGEN in order to pay for the medical treatment, which could save Juliette's life. Casey's heist, however, doesn't go to plan and Hagen catches him. Against all odds he manages to escape Hagen's men, steal one of Hagen's cars, and flee onto the autobahn. Pursued across Germany, he races to save his own life and get to Juliette before Hagen's men get to her first.
Movie Review:
Amidst its opening images of a car spinning slo-mo in mid-air, Nicholas Hoult’s small-time crook Casey Stein speaks of how love isn’t quite so crazy a reason to do reckless things in life, especially since it is the only thing keeping him alive right then.
Frankly, we’re not quite convinced.
Why should we, considering that Casey’s romance with fellow American Juliette (Felicity Jones) is, within 20 minutes, barely established – notwithstanding that he is apparently so lovestruck after meeting her at a rave that he immediately quits working for the drug dealer Geran (a supremely over-the-top Ben Kingsley) and moves in together after just three months of courtship?
Oh yes, as far as exploring ‘how far would you go for the one you love’ is concerned, neither Casey and Juliette individually nor their mutual relationship is defined compellingly enough for us to buy into it as the motivation for him going off the road – and we mean that both figuratively and literally.
Instead, as its title suggests, ‘Collide’ is really much more motivated by the sight and sound of automobiles racing each other down Germany’s famed Autobahn (which incidentally was its working title). That highway with no speed limit forms the backdrop for the film’s centerpiece, involving a regular sedan, several SUVs and subsequently a Ferrari in high-speed chases, shootouts and backflips. To its credit, the action never strains credibility even in its utter eagerness to put pedal to the metal, and indeed the same can be said of the film as a whole.
Like ‘xXx: Return of Xander Cage’ which he also wrote, F. Scott Franzier and his co-writer cum director Evan Creevy has a singular unwavering intent on keeping up a blistering pace throughout the course of their movie, which not only guides how quickly Casey switches from one vehicle to the next but also how cursorily the ‘non-moving’ parts are treated.
Not surprisingly, the not-quite-original plot which sees Casey approaching Geran for one last job in order to find the money for an immediate kidney transplant which Juliette requires and therefore places Casey squarely in the crosshairs of the erudite but ruthless drug kingpin Hagen Kahl (Anthony Hopkins) is simply filler between the non-stop action sequences.
That isn’t a bad thing in and of itself to be sure, but it also demands that its audience not have any expectation of it being more than a B-movie – or for that matter, for it to try to find any poignance in its purely mechanical setup of one guy supposedly risking his life to save the girl that he loves. Once that is clear, it is much easier to accept – and even enjoy – this meat-and-potatoes offering of reasonably well-shot action sequences in and around the somewhat lesser known German state of Cologne.
In the same vein, it is somewhat pointless to talk about the performances, given how they are clearly not the focus of the movie at all; notwithstanding, Hoult and Jones do invest sufficiently in their respective roles for us not to doubt the raison d'être of the premise in the first place, while veterans Kingsley and Hopkins in grossly underutilized supporting roles give their best in scenery chewing villainous turns.
There is no illusion on any of their parts just what they have signed up for here, and despite trying to sell this as a love-driven action thriller, there is hardly any doubt from the get-go that all it is concerned with is being action-packed and thrilling from minute-to-minute.
On that level alone, it is modestly entertaining, so as long as you’re here to see automobiles ‘Collide’ and nothing more, we dare say that you’ll not walk away disappointed.
Movie Rating:
(Don't expect any more than cars 'Collide'-ing and you'll find this blisteringly paced B-action movie moderately entertaining)
Review by Gabriel Chong
Genre: Horror/Thriller
Director: F. Javier Gutiérrez
Cast: Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki, Vincent D'Onofrio, Aimee Teegarden, Bonnie Morgan
Runtime: 1 hr 43 mins
Rating: PG13 (Horror)
Released By: UIP
Official Website: http://ringsmovie.tumblr.com
Opening Day: 23 February 2017
Synopsis: A new chapter in the beloved "Ring" horror franchise. A young woman becomes worried about her boyfriend when he explores a dark subculture surrounding a mysterious videotape said to kill the watcher seven days after he has viewed it. She sacrifices herself to save her boyfriend and in doing so makes a horrifying discovery: there is a “movie within the movie” that no one has ever seen before…
Movie Review:
Origin stories are coming fast and furious in the film industry these days, as studios milk successful classics for all their worth. Reboots, spin-offs - you name it, there’s one for all the major titles. Part of this movement has stories being expanded, and although this execution has proven successful for a few, it usually tends to warp them beyond recognition. The latest victim is Spanish director F. Javier Gutierrez’s incompetent exploration of the japanese horror classic The Ring.
Even when The Ring came out, the world was already moving beyond the analog universe. Gutierrez updates his version of the classic, by having copies of the eerie movie going viral, through thumbdrives and macbooks. You might think this was a long time coming, but the transition loses plenty of the horrific iconography.
This chapter starts with Holt (Alex Roe) leaving for college, leaving behind his adoring but plucky girlfriend Julia (Matilda Lutz). It’s not long before Holt disappears and the suddenly-paranoid Julia sets off to uncover the mystery, fearing beer pong friends and leggy gothic art girls leading him astray and turning him from their fledgling love. Of course, that’s not the case.
It would seem that Holt got involved in a student project with a weaselly professor (Johnny Galecki). In searching for the answer to validate his theories on immortality and some hitherto unexplained phenomena, he has enlisted the help of his students to perpetuate Samara’s clip, by offering them to new victims called “tails”. Well, this science experiment escalated quickly. We know this to be so because Julia discovers an “underground” facility of the professor, complete with twisted photos and ticking digital time clocks for each victim, not unlike some bizarre CIA operation. Unbelievable? Gutierrez has only just started.
Julia soon gets herself roped into the drama, watching the clip to save her boyfriend. When she gets persuaded to copy the file to pass on to another, the professor discovers a new clip within her version, with new disturbing imagery. This prompts our gutsy female lead to completely forget about her earlier purpose, and take on the role as Samara’s savior in the second half of the movie. Like, what?
Rings had good intentions, but it’s also a straight ticket to hell. The entire premise is structurally weak, and Gutierrez has chosen the year’s worst couple to lead the film. The pair comes across like an unfortunate Twilight update. Holt is the deflated boyfriend, who’s just about as useful as a third leg - sounds good on paper but trips you up every time. The Italian Lutz is the lovechild of Kristen Stewart and Brooke Shields. Her thick-browed furrows and pregnant pauses indicate nuance, but only appear as annoyance and completely incompatible with her environment and mood.
The flat acting is only exacerbated by the incoherent storyline and character motivations. In one scene, Julia visits Skye (Aimee Teegarden) in her apartment for news on where her boyfriend went. Skye actually wants her to watch the video, but warned by a text, Julia locks herself in the bathroom. She presses her face, completely without fear, against the door as Skye trashes her apartment as she battles with Samara. Later on, when she exits the apartment and sees the dead body there, she doesn’t seem suitably perturbed and steals the keys from the body’s pocket, only yelping when the face turns towards her. When she makes it out, she bumps into her missing boyfriend, only to get all peeved and moralistic that he is in this experiment. This girl has some priority issues.
The later half plays out like your typical detective whodunnit with our too-serious Julia playing quite the exceptional Sherlock. She goes to places and meaningfully deciphers all the clues, usually after one of her meaningful looks. Um, ok. Occasionally she smothers us with heavy breathing, before a jump scare “rewards” the moment. When she finally uncovers the mystery of Samara’s new mission, detailing her terrible birth and death (but didn’t we already experience this in the earlier two films?), we can heave a sigh of relief that we didn’t expire from watching this latest dud.
The Ring had solid acting and put us through the tribulations of a mother and what she would go through to save her child. Ring Two introduced truly disturbing imagery and twisted motivations. Rings has added nothing to this franchise and is best forgotten as a studio mistake. For all the things that were brought up for nothing in the show (Julia’s sick mum, the cheated-on ex, the “tails”, the research, the cicadas, oh the list goes on), please give them a proper burial, together with this film.
Movie Rating:
(The word franchise has become synonymous with easy money for producers, with the death of story-telling the true horror in this particular chapter)
Review by Morgan Awyong
Genre: Action/Adventure
Director: James Gray
Cast: Tom Holland, Charlie Hunnam, Sienna Miller, Robert Pattinson, Harry Melling, Franco Nero, Ian McDiarmid
Runtime: 2 hrs 20 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Nudity and Violence)
Released By: Cathay-Keris Films
Official Website:
Opening Day: 20 April 2017
Synopsis: Based on author David Grann's nonfiction bestseller, The Lost City of Z tells the incredible true story of British explorer Percy Fawcett (Charlie Hunnam), who journeys into the Amazon at the dawn of the 20th century and discovers evidence of a previously unknown, advanced civilization that may have once inhabited the region. Despite being ridiculed by the scientific establishment who regard indigenous populations as "savages," the determined Fawcett - supported by his devoted wife (Sienna Miller), son (Tom Holland) and aide-de-camp (Robert Pattinson) - returns time and again to his beloved jungle in an attempt to prove his case, culminating in his mysterious disappearance in 1925. An epically scaled tale of courage and passion, told in writer/director James Gray's classic filmmaking style, The Lost City of Z is a stirring tribute to the exploratory spirit and a conflicted adventurer driven to the verge of obsession.
Movie Review:
At some point or other, we’ve all experienced what it means to be consumed with passion over something that’s piqued our interest, stimulated our curiosity and preoccupied our minds.
For Colonel Percival Fawcett, that passion became a lifelong obsession over a lost city that lies somewhere in the deep of the Amazonians. It was an obsession that started in the year 1906 when he was posted to the Royal Geographic Society and sent into the jungles between Bolivia and Brazil to act as an independent referee over their border quarrel, a matter that had implications on the price of rubber and therefore of interest to the politically inclined Society. It was an obsession that would stay with him until his last expedition in 1925, where he was joined by his 21-year-old eldest child Jack, both of whom would not be heard from again nor found despite the efforts of hundreds of explorers that had subsequently entered the Amazon to retrace their steps.
Writer-director James Gray’s sumptuously old-fashioned epic ‘The Lost City of Z’ is precisely about Colonel Fawcett’s (Charlie Hunnam) consummate belief over the eponymous civilisation.
Beginning with his background as a hardy British Army officer who was frustrated by his ostracism from the upper echelons of military society due to ancestry (re: his father was a drunk and a gambler), Gray traces how a man would leave both wife and son behind, venture into hitherto uncharted realms, and spend the rest of the good years of his life trying to convince the Society that the glyphic markings and pieces of broken pottery he discovered on his maiden voyage into the South American jungle were in fact evidence of an ancient city of gold and maize he named ‘Zed’.
Along the way, Fawcett would find reliable companionship in one Henry Costin (Robert Pattinson) as much as he would end up being inevitably estranged from family given the time he spends away from them.
Adapting David Grann’s 2009 non-fiction bestseller of Fawcett and his expeditions is no small feat, especially given how the narrative sprawls over two decades. That Gray manages to accomplish that while squeezing in key episodes in Fawcett’s life (two in particular stand out – one involving a pompous senior Society member James Murray (Angus Macfadyen) who joins him on one of his voyages in 1912 and ends up jeopardising the entire crew and mission; and another at the Battle of the Somme during World War I where he would suffer temporary loss of sight after exposure to chlorine gas) and keeping clear focus on the costs and consequences of Percival’s singular obsession is nothing short of astounding.
Running at 2 hours and 20 minutes, it is long no doubt, and some stretches will feel – for the lack of a better word – a stretch, but those willing to take the patience will find themselves rewarded with an intimately engrossing study of a man consumed by the desire to explore and seized by an almost ritualistic form of natal homing.
Though somewhat underwhelming as the leads in ‘’Crimson Peak’ and ‘Pacific Rim’, ‘Sons of Anarchy’ alum Charlie Hunnam is magnificent as Fawcett. Unlike his aforementioned blockbusters, this movie isn’t built on visual spectacle – notwithstanding the encounters with native tribes friendly and hostile – but one which draws from its key protagonist’s emotional core. As Fawcett, Hunnam embodies his character’s ambition, purpose and motivation with poise, and it is as accomplished a performance that is grounded, persuasive and compelling.
It may not be immediately obvious, but Hunnam’s complement is not Pattinson but Sienna Miller, portraying his sharp-minded wife Nina who supports his outsized dreams but nonetheless has to manage the teenage resentment of their son. Miller may appear in at most a third of the film, but her luminous and astute presence is keenly felt throughout as the keeper of their family who wants to savour the same elation of discovery as her husband but knows and accepts her destiny as the one to be left at home. It is a testament to Miller’s outstanding work that Gray chooses to begin the film with her husband but end on her character, who delivers an epilogue by quoting from Rudyard Kipling’s ‘The Explorer’ and Robert Browning’s ‘Andrea del Santo’ before the poetic final shot.
Yes, whereas Grann adopts a journalistic perspective and fills in the missing pieces of his subject’s life with his own investigation, Gray opts instead to embrace Fawcett’s mysticism of the South American forests.
Was his quest driven by an innate need for spiritual fulfilment? Gray suggests that, and indeed accords him such a befitting farewell. Was his quest motivated too by his disillusionment with the life he would otherwise have inhabited? Gray suggests that as well, as Fawcett looks not at a picture of his family but a drawing of the Amazon just before charging into war at the Somme. Was that quest ultimately futile? Gray rejects that, and in fact honours Fawcett as a person who chose to follow his dreams with conviction and having lived his life fully.
Though his earlier crime dramas and tales of Eastern European immigrants in New York City may not have suggested a fit for Fawcett’s story, Gray brings the same his classical filmmaking style on this historical epic, and like his 2013 ‘The Immigrant’ or 2008’s ‘Two Lovers’, ‘The Lost City of Z’ is both intimate and expansive, imaginative and precise, patient and elegant.
Such old-fashioned adventure epics are themselves a lost genre these days, but Gray resurrects their grand sweep and dreamy energy in his modern-day classic. In Fawcett’s quixotic quest, Gray ponders no less on the meaning of life itself – that of life as a mystery, of how a man’s grasp should always exceed his reach, and how meaning in one’s finite existence is perhaps derived from how much understanding that journey has brought to one’s heart – and let’s just say this is one voyage into the unknown that is, however paradoxically, not lost or aimless but transporting and profound.
Movie Rating:
(Bringing his classicial filmmaking style to bear on an old-fashioned adventure epic, writer-director James Gray weaves an intimate yet expansive symphony around an explorer driven by ambition, purpose and utter conviction)
Review by Gabriel Chong
|
ADVANCE TICKET SALES FOR FIFTY SHADES DARKER STARTS ON FRIDAY FEBRUARY 3RDPosted on 08 Jan 2017 |
Genre: Mystery/Thriller
Director: Gore Verbinski
Cast: Dane DeHaan, Jason Isaacs, Mia Goth, Adrian Schiller, Celia Imrie, Lisa Banes, Carl Lumbly, Magnus Krepper
Runtime: 2 hrs 28 mins
Rating: M18 (Sexual Scenes & Nudity)
Released By: 20th Century Fox
Official Website: https://www.facebook.com/CureForWellness/
Opening Day: 16 February 2017
Synopsis: An ambitious young executive is sent to retrieve his company's CEO from an idyllic but mysterious "wellness center" at a remote location in the Swiss Alps. He soon suspects that the spa's miraculous treatments are not what they seem. When he begins to unravel its terrifying secrets, his sanity is tested, as he finds himself diagnosed with the same curious illness that keeps all the guests here longing for the cure. From Gore Verbinski, the visionary director of THE RING, comes the new psychological thriller, A CURE FOR WELLNESS.
Movie Review:
With a repertoire consisting of The Ring (2002), the first three films of the box-office Pirates of the Caribbean series (2003-2007), as well as his last film, action western movie The Lone Ranger (2013), director Gore Verbinski’s movies seems to have become synonymous with hefty budgets, high visual impact and a healthy dose of entertainment (though with varying degrees of success). And A Cure for Wellness manages to tick off most of these boxes, channelling its generous budget into visual artistry and an overall good time to be had by audiences.
The lead character is finance executive Lockhart, played by Dane DeHaan, who could pass off as the younger corporate cousin of Leonardo DiCarprio in The Wolf of Wall Street. He jets off to Europe on a mission to fetch his CEO Pembroke (played by Harry Groener) from the wellness retreat back to Manhattan in order to sign some crucial business documents. Unfortunately, Lockhart gets into an accident before he succeeds and has to stay on in the same sanatorium while his broken leg recovers. Aptly cast with his pallid face and sunken eyes, DeHaan’s Lockhart looks like he is in need of some rejuvenating hydrotherapy himself, and that is exactly what he gets at the sanatorium on the advice of Dr. Heinreich Volmer (played by Jason Isaacs), head of the institute that administers the spa wellness programmes.
Along the way, Lockhart strikes an unlikely friendship with the waifish Hannah (played by Mia Goth – that last name though!), a long-time patient at the sanatorium who has to take special “vitamins” from a vial. The rest of the clientele seem like well-heeled, elderly types perpetually clothed in bathing robes whose only agenda is to relax and partake in hydrotherapy exercises scheduled for them. As other seedy details emerge, including that of the sanatorium’s fascinating history as a former castle, Lockhart’s quest shifts from retrieving Pembroke to subverting the nefarious operations behind the wellness centre; one’s impression of him as unlikeable mercenary transitions to that of unlikely hero by the end of the film.
For those acquainted with Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the film feels almost like an updated re-telling of the gothic classic, with a science fiction twist thrown in for good measure. A guy visits a remote castle on business and gets more than what he bargains for? Check. In place of the titular Count, here there is a backstory of a baron who used to inhabit the sanatorium in its old castle days, committing unspeakable atrocities in his pursuit of keeping his royal lineage pure. And as with Dracula’s drawing of human blood for sustenance, the wellspring of human longevity in this film is tapped from sinister sources that are revealed towards the end of the film.
It’s a gorgeous flick and much of the credit goes to the excellent cinematography (by Bojan Bazelli, who also worked in the same capacity on The Ring with Verbinski) and opulent production design (by Eve Stewart). The ominous tone of the film is established right from the outset, as the camera pans across cold, monolithic Manhattan skyscrapers before the story shifts to the Swiss Alps. Ensconced in the middle of the mountains, the panoramas from the wellness centre are breath-taking, yet its isolation away from the rest of modern civilisation becomes uncomfortably palpable. The set design of the wellness centre doesn’t fail to impress either, recreated with its dank interiors, snaking corridors and clinical chambers.
Indeed, every shot feels painstakingly framed and the choice of colour palette of every scene appears to be measured and deliberate. Even the turquoise tiles of Lockhart’s room at the sanatorium appear to match the shade of green in his piercing eyes. There is plenty of interplay between light and darkness, reflections and refractions, enough to make even the most jaded of cinemagoers to sit up and appreciate its visceral aesthetic. Benjamin Wallfisch’s ominous score is the icing on the cake, perpetuating the requisite sense of dread throughout the entire film.
Despite the above, the film does suffer from a few major problems, most evident of which are the pacing and length of the film. With a staggering runtime of 146 minutes, it could absolutely do with niftier editing – surely at least half an hour or more of the film should have ended up on the cutting room floor. Crucial plot information is revealed at a frustratingly slow pace, with several scenes that seem to contribute little in propelling the storyline forward. It definitely feels as though the obsession with getting the visuals just right has come at the expense of tighter storytelling.
For example, bloodthirsty eels, – one of the major motifs of the film (perhaps doubling as some sort of symbol of fertility?) – while beautifully rendered, spring up so often as a device to elicit the jitters that it becomes somewhat tiresome. Another example: there are at least three separate scenes (functioning purely to manufacture a sense of unease but otherwise mostly superfluous) showing how the flush lever of the toilet bowl in Lockhart’s room rattles by itself, before he decides to uncover its cause. And when he finally does, there is no surprise to be had as audiences are already primed to guess why. For those expecting to be amply rewarded with a shocking climax after waiting out the length of the film, the pay-off is scant – too much is foreshadowed and it doesn’t take a genius to deduce the eventual twists in the story.
Ultimately, the subtext of the film seems to be an indictment on the malaise of modern life and how its cure could be as simple as exercising the choice to recognise its afflictions and remove oneself from its trappings and stresses. Although the film only flirts with rather than engages this premise full-on, one gets the feeling that the filmmakers are content not to take things further in that direction anyway. A Cure for Wellness is unlikely to be remembered as the latest feather in Verbinski’s cap, but whatever it is that the film falls short of in storytelling, this handsome film manages to makes up for it with its sumptuous visuals and richly macabre atmosphere.
Movie Rating:
(This gothic film is a feast for the senses and manages to keep things sufficiently entertaining, although the length and protracted pacing of the film will prove challenging for some)
Review by Tan Yong Chia Gabriel
Genre: Action/Adventure
Director: Guy Ritchie
Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Jude Law, Annabelle Wallis, Djimon Hounsou, Katie McGrath, Hermione Corfield, Millie Brady, Aidan Gillen, Astrid Bergès-Frisbey, Eric Bana
Runtime: 2 hrs 6 mins
Rating: PG13 (Some Violence and Brief Coarse Language)
Released By: Golden Village Pictures
Official Website:
Opening Day: 18 May 2017
Synopsis: Acclaimed filmmaker Guy Ritchie brings his dynamic style to the epic fantasy action adventure “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword”. Starring Charlie Hunnam in the title role, the film is an iconoclastic take on the classic Excalibur myth, tracing Arthur’s journey from the streets to the throne. When the child Arthur’s father is murdered, Vortigern (Jude Law), Arthur’s uncle, seizes the crown. Robbed of his birthright and with no idea who he truly is, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, his life is turned upside down and he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy…whether he likes it or not.
Movie Review:
King Arthur is a name that launches a thousand myths. Excalibur. Camelot. Merlin. The knights of the round table. Avalon. The symbols that have been spun around a very real British leader in the 5th-6th century became one of England’s most beloved legend.
In steps 21st-century director Guy Ritchie. The gutsy talent’s search for a rich tale lands on the classic and although it might be a stretch, I won’t be surprised if the script was conceptualised over several pints in an English pub somewhere in Cornwall. Heck, maybe even Beckham was there (I’ll explain this later, I swear).
When it comes to a reboot, Ritchie has a certain method. He amps up the action to match those of superhero movies. He kicks up the soundtrack with gritty rock and contrasting tunes. He throws in plenty of smart quips, giving a more urban context to the script.
In King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Ritchie’s formula of injecting modernity comes at a hefty price. The thrills, tunes and text all fall awkwardly and unevenly over the English tale. At its best bits, it’s refreshing and exciting. At it’s worst, it’s manic and drunken. Unfortunately, it tends to swing heavily to the latter.
Charlie Hunnam is Arthur, the ripped bordello-born heir to Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana). Aided by a sea-witch, who is basically a female Jabba the Hutt, his uncle Vortigern (Jude Law) gains demonic powers to slay his brother, and is seeking him out to end the threat to his throne.
As Vortigern gains ground, Arthur is helped by his street friends and a rebellion group, along with a magical lady friend only know as The Mage (Astrid Berges-Frisbey) sent by Merlin himself. They train the young king to master his destiny through his sword, and to ultimately destroy Vortigern.
I don’t think it’s too far of a stretch to say that this movie’s concept might have taken place at an English pub somewhere in Cornwall. The film feels overcharged with testosterone and a certain bawdiness that deflates the regal premise. In my opinion, you can have an epic fantasy tale, a modern urban reinterpretation, or a action-packed thriller - but not all three, unless you have mad skills. Ritchie doesn’t.
There are scenes here which shine, like the opening massive clash with celtic tune Headwind lumbering grandly. The standoff with the Vortigern’s army at the fighting arena also boasts some great sequence and choreography. There’s real talent here - namely Hunnam, Berges-Frisbey and Djimon Hounsou as Bedivere - but they are merely pawns in the film, with lines that bear no gravity or purpose other than to usher us into the next scene.
“Are you scared? You should be scared.”
“You want him to think big? Give him something big to think about.”
These are the type of lines that make up a good part of the film. It’s a shame really.
The rest of the movie comes across bloated and draggy - a terrifying combination that keeps one impatient. It’s filled with repetitive stale wisecracks, sandwiched between unexplained motivations and jump scenes that give one whiplash. Hardly anything is explained before our hero is speeding on to his next quest. What are the Darklands? Why is Arthur going there? Why is Beckham appearing in an awkward scene as a knight telling Arthur to pull the sword out from the stone? It looks like we’ll never know.
Like the football star’s appearance, many of the contrasting juxtapositions are meant to reinvigorate, but bad calls are everywhere. Main characters wear starkly modern designs against knights who wear full traditional armour. The urban witticism comes up against stiffer English statements, totally at odds. And I’m totally against white-washing roles but inserting a token black guy and asian guy isn’t exactly very flattering either. And yes, Beckham.
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword could do with plenty of refinement and possibly a woman’s touch. Maybe the poor unnamed Mage could help. For those who are curious, I believe in the original, she was called Nimue.
Movie Rating:
(A sword has been pulled but doesn’t seem to have the impact it promises. This film needs another savior)
Review by Morgan Awyong
| « Prev | 300 | 301 | 302 | 303 | 304 | 305 | 306 | 307 | 308 | 309 | 310 | Next » |
Most Viewed
No content.