Genre: Biography, Drama, Thriller
Director: Jonathan Teplitzky　
Cast: Brian Cox, Miranda Richardson, John Slattery, Ella Purnell
Runtime: 1 hrs 45 mins
Rating: PG
Released By: Shaw 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 6 July 2017

Synopsis: June 1944. Allied Forces stand on the brink a massive army is secretly assembled on the south coast of Britain, poised to re-take Nazi-occupied Europe. One man stands in their way: Winston Churchill.

Behind the iconic figure and rousing speeches: a man who has faced political ridicule, military failure and a speech impediment. An impulsive, sometimes bullying personality – fearful, obsessive and hurting.

Fearful of repeating, on his disastrous command, the mass slaughter of 1915, when hundreds of thousands of young men were cut down on the beaches of Gallipoli.

Obsessed with fulfilling historical greatness: his destiny.

Exhausted by years of war and plagued by depression, Churchill is a shadow of the hero who has resisted Hitler’s Blitzkrieg. Should the D-Day landings fail, he is terrified he’ll be remembered as an architect of carnage.

Political opponents sharpen their knives. General Eisenhower and Field Marshal Montgomery are increasingly frustrated by Churchill’s attempts to stop the invasion. King George VI must intervene. Only the support of Churchill’s brilliant, yet exasperated wife Clementine can halt the Prime Minister’s physical and mental collapse. The untold story of Britain’s most celebrated leader, uncovering the true nature of Churchill’s herculean war-time status and his vital relationship with “Clemmie” – his backbone and total confidant…the love that inspired him to greatness. 

Movie Review:

Sir Winston Churchill – unflappable wartime enigma glossing the pages of modern history textbooks as the British prime minister that led a nation to victory over Nazi Germany, but behind the larger-than-life public persona – an edgy, depressive personality whose private issues threaten to drive his marriage to the rocks? Gunning for the human frailty angle, director Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) and historian-screenwriter Alex von Tunzelmann’s “Churchill” banks on a premise that is certainly refreshing, even audacious, as far as representations of Winnie on the big screen go.

Scenes of Churchill (played by veteran thespian Brian Cox) cutting a contemplative figure in solitude on a beach – complete with his trademark cane, top hat and cigar – bookend this film. In the opening sequence, the sea becomes awash in red as Churchill ruminates about the impending invasion of German-occupied Normandy by the Allied Forces from Britain, i.e. Operation Overlord. Even if the sight is a figment of his imagination, it’s nonetheless striking (albeit in-your-face) symbolism for both the blood of innocent lives already spilled under his charge, as well as the lives he’s convinced are about to be lost.

Unfortunately, there’s little else vivid enough in “Churchill” worth delving into detail. Eschewing the traditional lifetime or career-spanning narrative, the rest of the biopic (if it can be called one) focuses on a specific snapshot of the three or so days leading up to the D-Day landings. Here, Churchill is on the cusp of his septuagenarian years and the outcome of World War II will definitively cement his political legacy, a fact he appears to be keenly aware of. Traumatised by costly military mistakes during the first World War (particularly the Gallipoli campaign) 30 years prior, much of the depicted countdown to the invasion consists of Churchill raising vociferous objections to his counterparts, including Allied Forces commander Dwight D. Eisenhower (John Slattery of television’s “Mad Men”) and Britain’s own general Bernard Montgomery (Julian Wadham).

We’re talking about a churlish Churchill throwing tantrums literally days before the launch of the biggest seaborne offensive in history, however, and not weeks or months, which is where von Tunzelmann takes the most significant historical licence, though in the name of sensationalised art or exposé-style revisionism, we’re not quite sure. In reality, despite his initial misgivings in the months before the Normandy landings, Churchill was well on board with the amphibian assault plans during the final lead-up to the Allied invasion on 6 June, 1944. Basically, the filmmakers’ modus operandi here appears to be this: magnify all the possible personality conflicts in the shortest timeframe possible to show a different side of Churchill, even if it means taking historical accuracy with a pinch of salt.

Sad to say, it’s a gamble that doesn’t pay off. The greatest irony here is that in her single-minded pursuit to confront our flatly romanticised notions of the rock-star-statesman’s gruff infallibility, screenwriter von Tunzelmann spends too much building up an unlikeable character that tips too strongly towards his minuses than his pluses. Instead of seizing the opportunity to sculpt a multifaceted persona, the character of Churchill has been mostly reduced to a liquor-swigging, cigar-puffing curmudgeon with a penchant for venting his frustrations on just about anyone within standing vicinity, including his longsuffering wife Clementine (Miranda Richardson). Repetitive, petulant theatrics and various contrived permutations of him uttering the equivalent of “I mustn’t let innocent lives die” make for monotonous viewing and a lack of ability to commiserate with the character on the part of audiences.

Predictably of course, with the benefit of hindsight (the battle is eventually won, thus allaying Churchill’s worst fears) and the way flicks like this go, the protagonist makes a U-turn by the end. He gets his act together, abruptly decides he has to treat his wife better, realises that he must not lose sight of his duty to rouse the spirits of the British people in times of bleakness and delivers a final pivotal speech – the film’s nod to the oratorical prowess that Churchill is so known for in real-life. ButThe King’s Speech (2010) this movie is not, and the filmmaker’s attempts to redeem the character at the end feels almost like an afterthought – too little, too late. History buffs will be appalled by the ludicrousness of the artistic liberties taken with the portrayal of Churchill and his antics leading up to D-Day. Less historically-informed audiences will be left scratching their heads wondering why they should be celebrating a cult personality that’s spent nearly all his screen time trying to oppose what history says is a successful, epoch-defining battle.

Due credit should still be given to the cast though. It’s worth noting that Cox was the same age as his titular character in the movie when filming on “Churchill” commenced (69 years old). Capitalising on the lines in his face carved out by age and a suitably hefty presence (both physically and figuratively), Cox’s portrait of the man is more than capable, although one wishes the perpetually sullen air he exuded was tempered by the charisma Churchill was also known for (not necessarily Cox’s doing; again we blame the script). The supporting actors also turn in credible performances with the limited material they have been handed. Slattery is unexpectedly formidable as Eisenhower – stoicism melts away to uneasiness in his eyes in a matter of seconds as he makes the final call for the invasion to proceed. Richardson also lends an understated dignity to her role as frustrated but loving wife to Winston Churchill. It’s therefore unfortunate that the script should let its cast down this much.

As the film closes, the film reminds us with an intertitle that Churchill’s often voted as the greatest Briton of all time. Which is perplexing, because the film seems to suggest he is hardly deserving of such a distinction. Is it, along with the final moments of the film, a last-ditch scramble to salvage the character of Churchill and remind audiences of his legacy? Or is it some grandiose call for reflection about the unwritten stories behind the winners in history? Like the swirling smoke from Churchill’s seemingly endless cigars that enshrouds most of the film, it’s not clear, but either way, the film doesn’t quite manage to get the message across. And at least one other thing is apparent though – there is precious little differentiating “Churchill” from one of those cheesy, insipid straight-to-television biopics commissioned forLifetime channel that we love to hate. 

Movie Rating:

(Rife with historical inaccuracies and too much of a drag to make for good entertainment, you might want to draw the (iron) curtains on this one unless you’re a war history buff)

Review by Tan Yong Chia Gabriel

Genre: Thriller
Director: Hany Abu-Asad
Cast: Kate Winslet, Idris Elba, Dermot Mulroney, Beau Bridges, Raleigh and Austin
Runtime: 1 hr 52 mins
Rating: M18 (Sexual Scene)
Released By: 20th Century Fox 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 2 November 2017

Synopsis: Stranded after a tragic plane crash, two strangers must forge a connection to survive the extreme elements of a remote snow covered mountain. When they realize help is not coming, they embark on a terrifying journey across hundreds of miles of wilderness, pushing one another to endure and igniting an unexpected attraction.

Movie Review:

If there's one lesson to be learnt from The Mountain Between Us, that is to pick a manly doctor as your fellow travel companion when you plan to embark on a shaky plane manned by a shady pilot. And preferably the companion comes in the form of Idris Elba (The Dark Tower, Thor)

Kate Winslet who escaped from the sinking Titanic decades back plays Alex, a photo journalist who is rushing back to New York for her wedding to a guy named Mark (Dermot Mulroney). But when all flights are cancelled due to bad weather, Alex proceeds to hire her own private plane and Ben (Elba), a brain surgeon who is hurrying to Denver for an operation decides to tag along. When their pilot suffered a stroke midway, the plane went on to crash onto a mountain top. With no one to turn to and with Alex’s leg injured, Ben and Alex must find a way out or risk perishing in the harsh cold weather.

The Mountain Between Us is actually based on a book by Charles Martin and reworked into a screenplay by Chris Weitz (The Golden Compass) and J. Mills Goodloe (The Age of Adeline) although no one will miss a beat if you tell them it’s from Nicholas Sparks. It’s more of a romance than a survival tale so you know what you are getting if you are planning to catch it. The chemistry between Winslet and Elba is electrifying, far more intense than the miserable fire they set up. It’s a big deal because the movie won’t work if the two leads are as stuffy as two soft toys and you are basically facing the two of them for most of the running time. Okay, there’s a dog which belonged to the dead pilot if you must argue.

Generally, it will be a boring, drag out affair however these two acclaimed cast members delivered performances that make their characters so believable and down-to-earth that you can’t help rooting for them. Alex is a sensitive soul who prefers to rely on her instinct while Ben is the logical one. The latter prefers to wait out for a rescue team and the former choses to venture into the unknown. The movie tells the story of how two remarkably different people end up falling in love with each other. Regardless of how cheesy it is, I guess this is the gist of the movie and it managed to convey it beautifully.

The movie does instil a sense of danger be it a cougar attack or Ben nearly falling off a cliff. There are certainly moments of peril here and there but again, this is not director Hany Abu-Assad’s (Paradise Now) purpose in telling this survival story. He is more concerned about the human connection and emotional attachment between these two persons who started out as complete strangers. We see them grow closer, fall in love and relying on each other to survive the ordeal. As audiences, we believe and care for them and that’s perhaps it’s the greatest achievement of The Mountain Between Us.

Not only are the two leads look amazing but the dreamy, sub zero landscapes as well. Cinematographer Mandy Walker (Hidden Figures) delivered a stunning piece of material that simply looks marvellous on the big screen. Of course, for contemporary audiences who grew up on fast-paced CGI heavy movies will find this old school romance hard to stomach. This survival cum romance story won’t exactly thrill you or keep you on the edge of your seat. Though certainly, for those looking for a genuine loving time shouldn’t miss this mountain and the two poor souls.

Movie Rating:

(Get some tissues ready before you catch this old-fashioned romance tale)

Review by Linus Tee

SYNOPSIS: When a proud general is tasked with winning an unpopular war, he takes the challenge head-on, not knowing that hubris may be his own worst enemy.

MOVIE REVIEW:

‘War Machine’ is probably Netflix’s most high-profile original movie to date, not only because its budget of US$60 million is something only a traditional movie studio would spend but also because of A-list star Hollywood star Brad Pitt headlining the ensemble cast. Pitt not only stars, but also produces, this darkly comic war movie based upon Michael Hastings’ 2012 nonfiction book ‘The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Story of America’s War in Afghanistan’. That book grew out of a Rolling Stone article by Hastings in 2010, which saw the leader of the U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal talk shit about President Obama and led to his eventual dismissal. Some details here remain – such as McChrystal’s routine of running seven miles a day and sleeping but four hours – but writer-director David Michôd’s character study isn’t so much meant to be accurate as it is an offbeat riff on the real-life general.

Pitt plays that fictionalised version of McChrystal, named Gen. Glen McMahon, who believes in his heart that he was sent there to win the war, and was therefore appalled when told by the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan as well as its Secretary of State that all the President (meaning Obama) wanted was to wind down the U.S.’s involvement in it within 18 months. To be sure, this wasn’t a man whose only mantra was might was right; on the contrary, he genuinely believed that the U.S. presence there could be for the good of the country – rooting out insurgents surely, but more than that, to build roads and schools so that Afghan citizens can have a better life – and counsels his jaded ground troops the same. “You can’t kill them and help them at the same time,” he says. “It’s just not possible!” There is certainly sense in the man’s strategy, whose show of force was largely in the offensive he led in Helmand province in a bid to weed out the Taliban insurgents once and for all. 

You’d have seen in the trailers how Pitt portrays McMahon as something of a heightened macho caricature, with bluster and swagger meant to hint at the man’s hubris above all. This was after all, a a former Ranger who was both a straight-A student and a troublemaker at West Point, who had authored a well-regarded book called ‘One Leg at a Time Just Like Everyone Else’ and was beloved by the men serving under him because he wasn’t afraid of getting his hands dirty. He was also surrounded by a reverential inner circle (played by such expert actors as Topher Grace, John Magaro, Anthony Michael Hall and Emory Cohen) who were there less to challenge his point-of-view than to reinforce it and pump up his ego. It takes a while getting used to Pitt’s puffed-up performance at the start (and you could even argue if the over-acting was even necessary in the first place), but thankfully the actor settles for a much more nuanced, even melancholic, portrait of his character as the story progresses. 

In fact, Pitt’s deft delivery during these later scenes means that you’ll even come to sympathise his character. This was a man trained to fight wars, thrown into a conflict that many would argue was a zero-sum game right from the start with nary a victory in sight, forced to reconcile the political position back in the U.S. with the sentiments of the men he was commandeered to lead, and not given any face time with his commander-in-chief until the damning article was published. In particular, this was man who was lost amidst the vast machinery of war (hence the title) that he was ultimately powerless to fight against, and his frustrations – however insubordinate they may have been – were not misplaced. You could criticise how he defends the principle of counter-insurgency (COIN) or his military’s complicated strategy framework in front of a whole gallery of reporters in Europe while n tour to appeal for his coalition partners to increase their troop deployments right before the Helmand offensive, but was there some other way out for him or for the U.S. military at that point in the war?

And that is the whole point of Australian filmmaker David Michod’s third film (coming after the brilliant crime drama ‘Animal Kingdom’ and the post- apocalyptic thriller ‘The Rover’), which is intended less to satirise the man at the heart of the saga than the system that he was hapless to work within or against. Quite frankly, the blunt attempts at comedy are no more than distractions (including Ben Kingsley’s cameo as the country’s wily leader who seems more interested in getting his Blu-ray player to work than McMahon’s dream) and having a constant voiceover by fictionalised reporter Sean Cullen (Scoot McNairy) errs at telling too much. But though slightly dulled, there is still real bite in Michod’s critique of the war machine built out of the U.S.’s decade-long involvement in Afghanistan as well as the honest, well-intentioned soldiers like McMahon whose lens of traditional warfare was simply incongruous with the reality on the ground. 

More than whether Netflix’s ‘War Machine’ is detrimental to moviemaking by disrupting the traditional cinematic model is the question if the film is worth its own weight, no matter which medium or channel it is being delivered on – and on the latter regard, Pitt’s latest movie represents an unequivocal yes. It does take its time to find its feet, but there is obviously a lot of context to set in order for us to understand the circumstances that Gen McMahon had to orientate himself to. So despite its flaws, we’d say this is one important and significant movie that you’ll want to invest two hours of your time in.  

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Horror/Thriller
Director: John Leonetti
Cast: Joey King, Elisabeth Röhm, Sherilyn Fenn, Ki Hong Lee, Alice Lee, Ryan Phillippe
Runtime: 1 hr 31 mins
Rating: PG13 (Horror)
Released By: Shaw
Official Website: http://www.wishuponmovie.com

Opening Day: 13 July 2017

Synopsis: In the latest thriller from the director of ANNABELLE, 17-year-old CLARE SHANNON (Joey King) is barely surviving the hell that is high school, along with her friends MEREDITH (Sydney Park) and JUNE (Shannon Purser). SO when her dad (Ryan Phillippe) gifts her with an old music box with an inscription that promises to grant the owner's wishes, she thinks there is nothing to lose, until the people closest to her begin dying in gruesome and twisted ways. Now, with blood on her hands, Clare has to get rid of the box, before it costs her and everyone she loves the ultimate price.

Movie Review:

It seems like horror films these days come more with cred tags than an actual tagline. You know, the sort that goes “by the makers/producers/director of Insidious/Conjuring/Annabelle”?

Wish Upon is the latest entry, opting to put the combination of Director and Annabelle together to achieve that repute. The cursed wish box film certainly holds some tradition of that lineage in its structure and acting, but fails to elicit the same kind of horror the main franchise offers.

Clare Shannon (Joey King) is a social outcast at school. She’s particularly picked upon by the mean girls in her school and her social media “likes” figure at one-digits. The troubled teen can’t get over the string of misfortune since her mum hung herself, and her dad Jonathan Shannon (Ryan Phillippe) embarrasses her further with his dumpster diving.

Always seeking to gain favour with his daughter, Jonathan gifts her with his newest find - a large octagonal box with chinese motifs. Our heroine unwittingly discovers the powers of the wish box and while getting her deepest (and often impulsive) desires granted, unleashes death around the ones she loves, ingraining that old advice about everything having its price.

Wish Upon is not a terrible film per se. It’s got decent acting and cinematography, the characters are easy to love or hate, and the story straightforward. What it does suffer from is a sense of datedness that starts all the way from how the characters talk, to the 80s stereotypes when anything “chinese” is mentioned. And I’m talking chopsticks-in-hair and red lanterns yo. The only thing missing is an old man in a cap with wispy white whiskers murmuring, “Be careful what you wish for, because the dragon will circle the mountain when the moon eats the dog”. Or something like that.

If you don’t believe me, when Clare needs someone to decipher the “ancient chinese” on the box, fellow classmate Ryan Hui (Lee Ki Hong) offers up his cousin Gina, who is happy to translate for a side of wantons. And, and, and… the ancient chinese looks more like a stylised Photoshop font.

Racial rant aside, the film delivers some nice Final Destination moments that had my fellow audience squealing. The struggle for Clare, as unlikeable as she is at times, is readily felt, as she lashes out like an addict when her box is threatened to be taken away from her.

As her wishes start to distort, such as her longtime crush falling madly in love with her, knife and secret photos and all, it one again serves up a cheesy reminder to be careful of what one wishes for.

Movie Rating:

(This fortune cookie will read: straightforward horror with a few good gnarly moments of death tries to be updated, but firmly sits in a dated chair. Bu yao zhe yang ke yi ma?)

Review by Morgan Awyong

Genre: Animation
Director: Atsushi Takahashi
Cast: Wasabi Mizuta, Megumi Ohara, Yumi Kakazu, Tomokazu Seki, Subaru Kimura, Chiaki, Kotono Mitsuishi
Runtime: 1 hr 40 mins
Rating: PG
Released By: Golden Village Pictures 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 15 June 2017

Synopsis: Unable to endure the midsummer heat, Doraemon transports Nobita and his friends to a huge iceberg floating in the South Pacific. While creating an amusement park with the secret tool “Ice-working Iron” the group finds a mysterious golden ring in the ice. Upon closer examination, they determine that the ring was buried in Antarctica 100,000 years ago… before people could have lived there! Doraemon and friends head to Antarctica looking for the owner of the ring and come across the ruins of a huge city buried in the ice. Using Doraemon’s Time Belt, the group travels back 100,000 years ago and meets the young girl Kara who is connected to the mysterious ring. But now the group must fight for survival as Doraemon faces the crisis of the entire Earth freezing!

Movie Review:

This writer remembers waking up early on weekends to watch Doraemon cartoons on TV. These 30 minute shows would usually contain two separate storylines which are short and sweet enough for viewers to stay captivated. After half an hour of marveling at what fancy gadgets the robotic cat can pull out from his pocket, this writer would go back to bed to sleep the weekend away.

For the uninitiated, Doraemon is a Japanese manga series written and illustrated by Fujiko F. Fujio. The titular character is a robotic cat who travels back in time from the 22^nd century to protect and guide Nobita, a young boy who is frequently bullied.

Over the years, Doraemon has been adapted into an immensely popular and successful anime series and media franchise. Countless Doraemon films have also been released and the series is Toho’s most lucrative movie property.

Viewers who are old enough will remember the films based on the original 1979 series, and the new those based on the 2005 generation anime, Then there is the special 2014 movie “Stand by Me Doraemon” where fans got all teary eyed seeing Doraemon coming to Nobita’s house for the first time and how he eventually bids farewell to the boy.

You may be confused – how do all these movies fall in place chronologically? There is no need to scratch your heads over this. All these years, you have been watching Doraemon cartoons to be in awe with the imaginative storylines. If there is another opportunity to milk money out of the franchise, and people are loving what they see, why not?

Doraemon and his friends have gone on adventures to many exotic and perilous places: they have come face to face with dinosaurs, gone to the heart of Africaand ventured to the depths of the ocean. These films often touch on educational subject matters like environmentalism and technology – the latest installment is no different.

The scorching heat is too much for Doraemon and his friends, and they are transported to a huge iceberg in the South Pacific. While having fun creating amusement parks on ice, they find a mysterious golden ring and uncover the truth about the artifact. Adventure ensues and they visit a huge city buried in ice, fight monsters and are entrusted with the task of saving Earth from freezing.

This is the kind of storyline we have grown up to adore. The simplest plot, coupled with familiar characters like Shizuka (the smart, kind and pretty girl everyone loves), Suneo (the fox faced show off who loves flaunting his new toys) and Gian (the strong and quick tempered bully who has a horrible singing voice), makes this 37^th movie in the series as likeable as every previous film.

The young ones will want to be part of the gang who goes on such fun adventures all the time, while the adults will reminisce the good ol’ times when storylines are easy to understand, characters are either heroes or villains, and the animation style is indulgently old school. 

Movie Rating:

(Everyone loves Doraemon – you will walk out of the cinema smiling) 

Review by John Li

Genre: Drama
Director: Wong Chun　
Cast: Shawn Yue, Eric Tsang, Elaine Jin, Charmaine Fong
Runtime: 1 hr 41 mins
Rating: PG13
Released By: MM2 Entertainment, Golden Village Pictures 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 22 June 2017

Synopsis: “To avoid, or to confront? To deny, or to embrace? To give up, or to make a change?” The film begins with an old man who has long been absent as a father (Eric TSANG), picking up his son (Shawn YUE), who is suffering from bipolar disorder, from a mental hospital. Both men are in deep remorse for the accident that caused the death of the mother (Elaine JIN). The tension and anxiety boil as they stay with each other in a tiny subdivided flat. As time passes, they realize the pain between one another is not the only confrontation that awaits them; but also to face the cruel and unjust world that they are living in.

Movie Review:

“And now here is my secret, a very simple secret: It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye.” ― Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince

‘Mad World’ is not an easy film to watch, but it is well worth the discomfiting experience. Not quite enough attention has been paid to the plight of mental health patients who try to re-integrate into the community, and certainly too little attention has been placed on the frustration and even exasperation of their caregivers. While the former often find their best attempts thwarted by the fears, biases and outright discrimination of general society, the latter has to contend not only with the same but also the outbursts of their loved ones struggling to overcome their condition, so much so that many often end up in burnout.

Both perspectives are vividly portrayed in director Paul Chun’s feature debut, which follows Tung’s (Shawn Yue) acclimatisation to the outside world after spending a year in a mental hospital for bipolar disorder. Seeing little more that institutionalisation can do for Tung, the hospital contacts his estranged father Wong (Eric Tsang) to look after him, but the latter is frankly completely ill-prepared. A cross-border truck driver who was often absent from home, Wong had pretty much abandoned his mentally disturbed wife (Elaine Jin) and Tung years ago, which Tung inevitably still begrudges him for; after all, that had led to Tung needing to quit his job to take care of her when she became bedridden, and that stress of being the only caregiver, aggravated by her verbally abusive ways, had ultimately led to her accidental death one day and his subsequent admission into psychiatric care.

There is plenty in the past that Tung needs to come to terms with on his own, and equally just as much in the present. His friends had deserted him ever since the much-publicised incident a year earlier, and his surprise appearance at a former colleague’s wedding soon after his discharge shows how ignorant and bigoted they can be. He wants to make things right with his former fiancée Jenny (Charmaine Fong), who had to repay not just the flat they had bought together but also the moneylenders Tung owed because of a huge loan he took out to finance some risky investments that eventually went south. It doesn’t help that social media has fuelled a gallery of judgmental jury, who seize on his unfortunately public meltdown after hearing Jenny’s emotive confession of her ordeal to question his mental state and weigh if he should be sent back to hospital after all.

Oh yes, the title could refer to Tung’s own mind as much as it could of the external environment he has to navigate – and Wong takes swipes at everything from our prejudice against the mentally ill, to the terrible living conditions of Hong Kong’s lower-class, and even to the spate of ‘banker’ suicides in the financial district back in 2014/15. It is to his credit as well as that of screenwriter Florence Chan that their movie never feels the need to scream at or, for the lack of a better word, get mad at these social ills; rather, both display remarkable restraint at simply keeping it authentic, letting their audience make their own discernments rather than lay out the critique for us.

In fact, ‘Mad World’ is much better off by simply remaining at its heart a frank and intimate portrait of Tung’s struggle to get back on his feet, anchored by the initially tense but ultimately tender father-son relationship between Tung and Wong. Like we said at the beginning, the struggle is as much Tung’s as it is Wong’s. Through the course of the movie, Wong has to seriously evaluate if he has the means and wherewithal to care for Tung, especially given how little support he has from his family (his eldest son, or Tung’s older brother, has resettled in the United States, staying conspicuously absent and callously disengaged throughout), friends and fellow tenants – and let’s just say it says a lot when another caregiver at a carer support programme Wong enrols himself in advises him to consider re-admitting Tung back into hospital under the false pretence that the latter is suicidal.

Though more commonly known for his comedic roles, Eric Tsang is in top form here as Wong. In perfectly low-key fashion, Tsang lays bare his character’s uncertainties and anxieties at the beginning when asked to look after Tung, subsequent guilt and pain when forced to confront the sins of his past, and eventually resolve to not ‘outsource’ his responsibilities as a father. Tsang doesn’t overplay or overstate Wong’s dilemmas, allowing his audience to make sense of his character on their own terms. For that matter, so does Yue, who eschews histrionics in his portrayal of Tung’s manic/ depressive state. Proving his mettle as one of the most underrated actors of his generation, Yue gives a layered, nuanced performance that earns empathy without ever playing the ‘pity’ card. Most of the time, Yue and Tsang also exude a gentle but unmistakable familial warmth; though in the singular scene where they go head to head with each other’s grievances, both actors bring heartfelt poignancy as two individuals trying to make the best of their respective circumstances but whose actions and decisions are inextricably bound to each other.

Aside from the fact that Tung’s journey to reintegrate back into the community is not an easy one, ‘Mad World’ is also not an easy fact simply because there are no easy solutions to the issues faced by people like Tung. At the individual level, it isn’t easy for the caregiver, as Wong’s own experience here shows. At the community level, it isn’t easy for neighbours, friends and even relatives to put aside their fears or biases. And at the societal level, it isn’t easy to change mindsets borne out of ignorance or worse convenience. But like the quote which bookends the movie, it starts with having a heart for these individuals we often shun, so that however idealistic it may sound, the world may be a little less crazy for them and for us. 

Movie Rating:

(Anchored by career-best performances from Shawn Yue and Eric Tsang, ‘Mad World’ is an honest, sincere and at times discomfiting portrait of mental illness that is deeply meaningful and genuinely moving)

Review by Gabriel Chong

Genre: Sci-Fi/Thriller
Director: Yoon Hong-Seung
Cast: Yang Mi, Wallace Huo, Jin Shijie, Liu Chang, Zhang Yihan
Runtime: 1 hr 46 mins
Rating: TBA
Released By: mm2 Entertainment, Clover Films, Golden Village Pictures 
Official Website: 

Opening Day: 29 June 2017

Synopsis: Xia Tien is a single mother who works as an associate researcher, helping to complete a technology that can allow people to go back in time. One day, her son is kidnapped by a mysterious man and she was forced to hand over her life's work. She takes a risk and travels to a time an hour and fifty minutes earlier in hopes of saving her son where she meets 3 of her own selves.

Movie Review:

It’s exciting times. Nexus is a research facility close to completing a time-travelling device. Just two kinks - living subjects seem to exhibit some kind of cell degeneration after a period of time, and current energy levels at the site can only send them back a maximum of an hour and forty-five minutes.

Xia Tian (Yang Mi) is the talented associate researcher who heads the project with her mentor (Chin Shih Chieh). Struggling between her work and spending more time with her young son, the demure but passionate single mother opts to give her all and promises a fortnight’s deadline to the directorial board to rectify all loose ends. Unknown to her, a rival group has sent a hitman (Wallace Huo) to retrieve the data and her for their own gain, using her son as bait.

This sci-fi thriller, produced by Jackie Chan but directed by korean Yoon Hong-Seung has a plotline that’s not difficult to predict. And even though it’s a little cliche, it does have its moments, such as when an alternate Xi Tian gives up her son to the original Xia Tian.

Sadly, Reset fails to generate much past those occasional moments. The faultlines run through the entire film, with faults in four major areas - its actors, production value, scripting and editing.

As a film heroine, Yang Mi never really convinces. Her winsome ways are almost annoying, only matched by the inaptitude of her ex-husband Da Xiong (Liu Chang). Often the pair’s interaction is reduced to him asking Xia Tian what is happening, while she repeatedly stresses there’s no time to explain. She limps and struggles through every scene, even though she didn’t suffer any extra trauma - an awkward dramatisation that leaves me feeling detached.

Adding to the poor immersion are the sets and CG effects of the film. With the exception of the actual time portal, the other environments look recycled and make-shift. From the over-use of glass panels as writing boards and computer screens, to those embarrassing styrofoam of a statue and physic-defying CGI container collapse scenes, everything seems forced.

Gaping discrepancies are everywhere. The cast repeatedly emphasizes how the experiment is not ready for live human subjects, but when Xia Tian takes on the risk to save her son, she not only puts on a ready-made suit for the machine, but also punches in the activation sequence, inside the machine. Most laughably, when she goes back in time and exits the chambers, she asks her Da Xiong for some spare clothes and he presents it to her.

Most shocking of all is the editing. Kim Sang-beom has an impressive resume, having worked on brilliant films like Oldboy and Lady Vengeance, but in Reset, the uts feel tedious, insinuating that someone might have skimmed over storyboarding.

Reset is that new trend of merging Asian talents, and while a few have succeeded, this entry will go down as another lesser effort that suffered in translation.

Movie Rating:

(Going back in time seems like a good idea right about now for producer Jackie Chan. Reset requires all to revert to the drawing board)

Review by Morgan Awyong

SYNOPSIS: A skilled Special Forces commando (Alba) takes ownership of her father's bar after he suddenly dies and soon finds herself at odds with a violent gang running rampant in her hometown. 

MOVIE REVIEW:

A woman walks into a bar and asks her bartender friend…

Despite starring Jessica Alba who returns to the screen after a long hiatus, Trigger Warning feels like a bad bar joke armed without a punchline and practically falls flat.

The opening scene showcases Alba’s character, Parker as a kick-ass military personnel. Upon learning about her pops’ death, Parker returns to her hometown to take over his bar and also literally, his man-cave. Don’t ask why but it’s there for a purpose. As she notices some unusual details surrounding his death, Parker decides to dig deeper with the help of her bartender friend, Mike (Gabriel Basso).

It turns out there is some serious arms smuggling involving the town’s senator, Ezekiel Swann (Anthony Michael Hall), his sons, Sheriff Jesse (Mark Webber) also conveniently Parker’s ex-beau and Elvis (Jake Weary), the no-good younger brother.

Taking a cue from Walking Tall and Rambo, Trigger Warning offers a been-there, done-that narrative with a female protagonist instead of a macho male. Simply put, it’s a story of a trained soldier riding into town to wipe off the corruption and violence. To be fair, Alba is significantly ripped for the role and well-prepared for the various physical stunts. However, she alone can’t salvage the uninteresting revenger tale.

While we can definitely accept a sloppy, predictable actioner, Trigger Warning fails on all levels on how to execute one. Firstly, the premise is extremely ridiculous. Apparently, a senator can control an entire town and pulled off a felony to sustain his political campaign. Secondly, Parker can carry out her role as a vigilante without informing any higher authorities. Come on, she is a government personal after all. And where did all those so-called terrorists came from? And who is responsible for all the arms smuggling in the army base?

End of day, Trigger Warning decides to ignore all common sense and logic. Even another bartender named Mo and the rest of the town folks are equipped with arms and ready to fight against the villains in the finale. It’s so ridiculous and probably by this time, you already gave up on it.

Produced by the people behind John Wick and Alba herself, Trigger Warning should remained in Netflix hell never to be release to the public. Easily a forgettable direct-to-VOD title that features less than imaginative action, story and dialogue.

MOVIE RATING:

Review by Linus Tee

LOCAL HORROR HIT 23:59 GETS A SEQUEL IN CINEMAS JANUARY 2018! Posted on 13 Jun 2017 Clover Films, Gorylah Pictures and mm2 Entertainment Pte Ltd are excited to announce a new movie production, 2359: THE HAUNTING HOUR. The franchise 2359: THE HAUNTING HOUR continues to tell horror encounters of camp mates during their army days. This time, the movie features a trifecta of horror stories span over different critical eras in the history of Singapore’s National Service. ... more

Genre: Animation
Director: Sunao Katabuchi
Cast: Non, Yoshimasa Hosoya, Minori Omi, Natsuki Inaba, Daisuke Ono, Megumi Han
Runtime: 2 hrs 10 mins
Rating: PG13 (Brief Nudity)
Released By: Encore Films
Official Website:

Opening Day: 6 July 2017

Synopsis: The award-winning story follows a young girl named Suzu Urano (voiced by Non), who in 1944 moves to the small town of Kure in Hiroshima where she marries Shusaku Hojo (voiced by Yoshimasa Hosoya)—a young clerk who works at the local naval base. Living with his family, Suzu learns to adjust to her new life and soon becomes essential to the running of the household during the tough war-stricken climate. Despite the difficult kitchen conditions of wartime regulation, drinking the wisdom of the world, the Hojo family live out their day-to-day lives with Suzu’s creative meals and infectious optimism. The war, however, progresses to ever-growing bleakness. In 1945, intense bombings by the U.S. military finally reach Kure with devastating effect to the townsfolk and their way of life. Suzu’s life is changed irrevocably, and she must now find a way to maintain the will to live.

Movie Review:

‘Your Name’ may have been all the rage in Japan last year, but writer/director Sunao Katabuchi’s crowd-funded adaptation of Fumiyo Kono’s popular manga ‘Kono Sekai no Katasumi ni’ was perhaps even more warmly received by local critics, who bestowed on it numerous awards including Best Japanese Film in the 90^th Kinema Junpo Best 10 Award. Both are tonally quite different – whereas the former speaks to the awkwardness of adolescence in its depiction of teenage love and the mysterious hand of fate, the latter harks back to the tragedies of World War II through the coming-of-age tale of an artless, dreamy young woman in the 1940s and strives instead to be thoughtful, restrained and elegiac. In short, you’re not likely to experience or emerge from Katabuchi’s film on an emotional high; in fact, this period anime unfolds on such its own leisurely pace that you’ll need to prepare yourself to settle in fully to appreciate its gentle charms, though we suspect that at slightly over two hours, some will no doubt find their patience duly tested.

Like his previous ‘Mai Mai Miracle’, the lead protagonist Suzu’s tale boasts a similar pastoral tone, although the time period here is about one or two decades earlier. Seven-year-old Suzu is living in Eba, a small seaside town in Hiroshima, with her parents and an older brother and sister. From young, Suzu’s lively sense of imagination is plainly evident; and a scene in her teenage years seals her bond with childhood sweetheart Tetsu through her painting of the sea and its waves as white rabbits, inspired by his description of the ocean. But Suzu’s story really begins at the age of 18 in the year 1944, when she accepts a marriage proposition from Shūsaku from all the way in the naval port city of Kure. Shūsaku remembers meeting Suzu all the way back in December 1933, but Suzu has no recollection of him; notwithstanding, she follows her grandmother’s advice and accepts his proposal, moving in with him and his elderly parents on a hillside in the suburbs of Kure.

Without any hint of haste, the middle act devotes itself to Suzu’s struggles settling down into her new life of domestication – cooking, fetching water, sewing kimonos, getting fresh produce from the market etc. Given how Suzu has always had her head in the clouds, these responsibilities as a housewife don’t come easy to her, and it doesn’t help that her sister-in-law Keiko, who has moved back along with her daughter Harumi after her husband’s unfortunate death from illness, seems perpetually displeased with her. Slowly but surely, the war makes its effect felt on Suzu as well as on the household: food becomes scarce; essentials like sugar are rationed; the twice-nightly air raids drive the family underground like ritual; and last but not least, Shūsaku as well as her father-in-law Entarō spend more and more time at their posts as a naval clerk and engineer respectively, with the increasingly frequent bombings placing their lives at increasing risk (true enough, Entarō goes missing after the raids hit the Hiro Naval Arsenal, though he is eventually found safe but injured in hospital).

It is at the two-third mark that tragedy strikes. A key character dies in a time-delayed explosion of a bomb dropped during one of the firebombing runs by US naval airplanes; and Suzu’s world withers into a flurry of white lines twisting and fluttering across empty black space. That same explosion also renders her forever incapable of doing the one thing she loves best, i.e. painting. And then the pivotal event happens – the atomic bomb which falls on Hiroshima, erupting in a tremor, a flash, then a huge cloud rising from the ground into the sky, and for a while, Suzu is unable to enter Hiroshima or get any information if her own family was killed in the blast. When the radio broadcasts resume, they are of news of Japan’s surrender, and the sudden ostensible futility of the whole war as well as the costs it had exacted on her bring Suzu to the brink of emotional despair. It is during the third and last act that the movie takes on newfound poignancy, depicting the disillusionment of an ordinary Japanese citizen whose life is thrown into disarray by the terrible monstrosity of war.

But it is also precisely this last third that gets under our skin for the wrong reasons. Certainly, the change in perspective is insightful; too often, victims of war have been portrayed as non-Japanese, when in fact there are countless Japanese whose lives were either disrupted or destroyed by World War II, especially by the twin US atomic bombs that decimated their cities. Yet it is deeply troubling that not a single one of the characters acknowledges their side’s role in the war in the first place and how all of it could equally, and perhaps even more completely, been avoided if the Japanese army had not possessed such imperialistic ambitions at the outset; in fact, Suzu even rails the army for surrendering when she hears of it on the radio, questioning why they had not kept true to their word to ‘fight until the very last man standing’. One could of course argue that she meant that cynically, but the truth is that it isn’t entirely clear if she did not intend it literally. It isn’t quite that we are expecting some form of apology, but the undeniable undertones in painting the Japanese as victims is deeply troubling to say the least.

And it is for that reason that we refuse to embrace Katabuchi’s admirable but politically disquieting anime. It isn’t that it is somewhat languid and narratively lethargic, even though we’re sure mainstream audiences who embraced ‘Your Name’ will probably find it so. It is more that what happens in Suzu’s corner of the world ignores the reality in other parts of the world, i.e. that there were countless others who suffered, even more needlessly, when the Japanese had invaded and bombed their land, before the rest of the world united behind the US in ending the war decisively and resolutely. As beguiling and appealing as its animation may be and portrait of rustic civilian life in the 1940s may be, there is simply no way to love it wholeheartedly when you realise that it may simply be subtly manipulating your emotions to rewrite the narrative on Japanese WWII aggression.

Movie Rating:

(Beautiful and beguiling as its pastoral tale of life in Japan before, during and after World War II may be, the undeniable political undertones in Sunao Katabuchi’s anime will leave you wary, and even disturbed)

Review by Gabriel Chong