Year: 2013
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Cast: Jude Law, Rooney Mara, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Channing Tatum
Plot: A psychiatrist finds himself in hot water after one of his patients, a depressed woman, commits a crime as a result of side effects from a drug he prescribed to her.
Review: Steven Soderbergh is a unique filmmaker who knows how to make a point without being over the top or flashy. You could almost say he has a somewhat quiet and subtle way of doing things.
With Side Effects, you don't really know what you're in for till you get to the second half of the film. The first half plays out like a medical drama thriller, until an abrupt left turn at the halfway point turns it into something else. In the third act, the real plot starts to show itself and it becomes a crafty movie. It's a very clever approach on the part of Soderbergh and writer Scott Z. Burns.
To his credit, Soderbergh's film is never boring. He paces the film well, not allowing any dramatic moments to dwell too much and drag the film down. His unique camerawork and editing style also helps, which include close up shots and neat sequencing of events. Put them all together and you get a well made thriller.
Jude Law is once again awesome here as the psychiatrist Dr Banks. Law has the gift of making himself very likable no matter what role he's playing, and he not only makes a great impression of a man trying to get to the bottom of things after the shit hits the fan, but also gets us to root for him the whole time. Rooney Mara is also amazing as Emily, the depressed woman in question. Mara is very convincing playing a clinically depressed person and you can't help but feel sorry for her at times. It also helps that she is beautiful and thereby easy to like. Catherine Zeta-Jones seems to excel being the antagonist here as Emily's former psychiatrist, she has that look. Channing Tatum is alright as Emily's husband but doesn't get a lot of screen time overall.
If there is a drawback here, it would be how convenient certain things play out. I won't go into details in order to not spoil it for you, but suffice to say that I've seen quite a bit of TV dramas where things like this aren't so clear cut.
All in all, Side Effects is a solid thriller with great performances and an unpredictable plot. Recommended. (4/5)
Year: 2013
Director: Jonathan Levine
Cast: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, John Malkovich, Rob Corddry, Analeigh Tipton, Dave Franco
Plot: A zombie falls in love with a human girl, which sets off a chain of events that changes the world of the undead.
Review: You wouldn't be far off the mark if you thought that Warm Bodies is like the zombie version of Twilight, except this is a comedy and in some ways, more entertaining.
In this world, from the mind of Isaac Marion (who wrote the novel), there's been a zombie apocalypse, not unlike The Walking Dead TV series. Humans barricade themselves behind a huge wall while walking corpses scavenge for food. The story is told from a zombie's point of view, R. R narrates his thoughts as he walks aimlessly around the airport where he lives, pondering his fate and what his undead life is like on a daily basis. It's pretty much ho hum until he meets Julie, a young girl whom he takes home to protect her from the other zombies and grows to like her. But how do you connect with the living if you're dead?
Director Jonathan Levine successfully brings the audience into this world by not trying too hard to explain stuff and letting the plot flow gradually. He lets R show how human he can be despite being a zombie, like listening to music (mostly cool 80s tunes) and constantly thinking like a living person despite knowing he's dead. The plot has to lead to a bigger picture of course, which involves Julie's father being keen on believing the dead are a constant threat, while the Bonies, skeletal like zombies, begin becoming more hostile to both humans and zombies alike.
Nicholas Hoult does better here than in the recent Jack The Giant Slayer. As R, he doesn't get to say much (other than his narrations) beyond a few words at a time, at least till later when things start to change, but he remains a very likable lead and one you'd have no problem rooting for. Teresa Palmer also makes a likable love interest as Julie, sharing great rapport with Hoult. Malkovich doesn't get much to do here as Julie's dad unfortunately. Rob Corddry lends some solid support though as R's zombie friend M.
The film does suffer a little in the credibility aspect at times. It's quite apparent if you've seen zombie films, and how they differ from what you see here. Of course, the rules have to be different in order for Warm Bodies to be appreciated as a comedy, so you may have to watch this with a pinch of salt.
All in all, Warm Bodies is a fresh approach to the zombie genre. It's a bit simplistic by the time the film ends, but it's entertaining nonetheless. (3.5/5)
Year: 2013
Director: Antoine Fuqua
Cast: Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman, Angela Bassett, Rick Yune, Dylan McDermott, Robert Forster, Melissa Leo
Plot: When North Korean terrorists attack the White House and take the President hostage, it's up to disgraced Secret Service agent Mike Banning to stop them.
Review: Olympus Has Fallen is reminiscent of Wolfgang Petersen's Air Force One, or the seventh season of 24 where Jack Bauer had to rescue the President from terrorists. It's not an original idea, but still a novel one, and has tons of potential to be entertaining if executed properly. To director Antoine Fuqua's credit, he succeeds pretty much, even though it's not without flaws.
For an action film like this, the audience needs realism and violence to enjoy it, and Fuqua brings them both in spades. Within the first half hour, pandemonium already breaks loose and a high body count starts piling up. Then from this point, Fuqua balances the story between agent Banning's attempt to stop the terrorists and Speaker of the House Trumbull, who is now acting President, attempting to negotiate with Kang, the leader of the bad guys. This part of the film will feel familiar if you've seen Die Hard or Sudden Death, but it's still fun to watch.
Gerard Butler is finally back to what he does best after failing miserably at trying to be funny. He fits the lead role of Banning to a tee, a man who had failed to save the First Lady at the film's beginning, and now carries some unwanted baggage with him. Butler is truly custom made for action flicks, and it shows in the fight sequences. Aaron Eckhart is quite solid as the President, but he doesn't get to be Harrison Ford here though, it is Butler that does all the ass-kicking. Morgan Freeman plays the Speaker with the same calmness that is expected of him, though I can't help but feel that he could have done this in his sleep, and this role in this kind of film is slightly below his paygrade. Rick Yune makes a nasty villain as Kang (though I've seen nastier), and is at his worst when he beats poor Melissa Leo (as Secretary of Defense McMillan) in front of her boss. Leo deserves applause for selling that scene well.
As mentioned, the film has its flaws, as in unexplained loopholes. How did the terrorists get their hands on the heavy artillery they used to get through the front door? How did they know the White House's countermeasures? How did they know about the security systems in place pertaining to the nuclear defenses which they wanted to use against the U.S? None of these were explained. I also think Fuqua could have explored Banning's relationship with the President a bit more. He did so at the beginning, but kinda left it at that once the plot moved on. This would have given the story more weight.
The question now is, will this film be better than Roland Emmerich's White House Down which will open in June? Hard to say, but if you like 90s action flicks, you'd enjoy this for sure. (3.5/5)
Year: 2012
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Jamie Foxx, Christoph Waltz, Leonardo DiCaprio, Samuel L Jackson, Kerry Washington
Plot: A recently freed slave teams up with a bounty hunter to save the former's wife from a ruthless plantation owner.
Review: Quentin Tarantino. There's no other director like him. There are probably aspiring directors out there who try aping guys like Spielberg, McTiernan and Nolan, but no one makes movies like Quentin. He's just unique in his own way. I've always believed Tarantino makes movies the way a movie fanboy would, and it still shows.
Tarantino's latest feature, Django Unchained is part western, part pre-Civil War story about vengeance and the all familiar battle between good men and disgusting villains. Tarantino's villains are especially evil from the way he writes them and presents them on screen, and is probably so just so that we can hate them easily and cheer when they meet their end, in true Tarantino-esque brutal style. In this case, we have the deliciously cruel Calvin Candie, a plantation owner who has vile ways of punishing his slaves, as well as Stephen, his senior house slave who is loyal to him.
But Tarantino's films aren't just about bad guys and violence, it's also about other things, in this case the friendship between the protagonists. Django the slave and Dr King Schultz, the bounty hunter who freed him are on a mission, both men driven by different reasons and thus different approaches, but they never lose sight of what they must do. Their bond with each other is also a strong element of the film.
I had my doubts on whether Jamie Foxx could play a black cowboy but he owns the role indeed. He has the right amount of intensity required to play Django. Christoph Waltz approaches the role of Schultz the same way he did with Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds, but it is still effective as it makes him extremely likable. Leonardo DiCaprio does a splendid job as Calvin Candie, it was truly impressive as I didn't think he was capable of being so despicable. Samuel L Jackson goes over the top quite a bit as Stephen, and even puts on some makeup to complete the look, but is effective nonetheless.
Now, the fact that it's a Tarantino film means there will be long drawn out sequences, excessive dialogue and over the top violence. They're all here and mostly done well. But I felt that some of it was just too much. Having loads of blood fly all over the place every time a bullet connects with flesh was laughable, though I can see that that's the point Tarantino is trying to make about film violence. But the film could have been shortened by about 15 to 20 minutes if they edited the last sequence, which I thought was just an excuse to show more violence. Don't get me wrong, I love on screen violence, I just feel that it ought to be there for good reasons, not flimsy ones.
But there's no denying that this is one awesome western, and an awesome Tarantino film. Recommended. (4/5)
P.S.: The soundtrack is awesome by the way.
Year: 2013
Director: Park Chan-Wook
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Matthew Goode, Nicole Kidman, Dermot Mulroney
Plot: When India Stoker's father dies, she and her mother Evelyn meet her estranged uncle Charlie, a mysterious member of the family who takes a great interest in India.
Review: It's hard to believe that Prison Break's Wentworth Miller wrote the screenplay to Stoker, and I mean that in a good way. I've always considered him to be an average actor at best, and to realise that he's capable of writing something this unique is impressive.
That script, combined with the direction of Park Chan-Wook makes Stoker an interesting, if not perfect film. Now, I haven't seen Park's Oldboy, but seeing his style on Stoker......it's wow. The guy has some rare techniques in his presentation. I love how he moves from one scene to the next by blending the backgrounds together, and Stoker also benefits from some really nice camera shots, either close up ones or the ones taken from unique angles. It's dazzling.
This film is a mixture of a character study and a psychological thriller, though to be honest, it doesn't quite excel in both genres. It does try brilliantly to merge the two together, but after seeing it, I felt like it can improve itself just a bit more. For instance, certain characters' motivations aren't made clear, and some scenes are there for no particular reason. Some other scenes also don't seem to connect well together, which may confuse viewers. The film also moves rather slowly, so patience is needed if you want to enjoy this.
Alice In Wonderland's Mia Wasikowska is an excellent choice as India, and this role shows how much she has grown since Alice. As India, she is externally different, in the way she dresses and communicates to people. It's clear that her late father was the only person who connected with her, as she doesn't speak to her mother much, and she has no friends in school. Her fashion sense is also very retro. But deep down she is intelligent, and it is often hard to tell what she is thinking. Mia pulls off this complex role very well. Matthew Goode is also solid as her uncle Charlie, who is as mysterious as they come. Goode has striking eyes, which enables him to look like a sinister character, yet come off as a handsome gentleman. It doesn't take long for the viewer to see that Charlie is a dangerous man, and seeing how it plays out is what keeps the story going. Nicole Kidman plays second fiddle this time as India's mother, and she does well in portraying a parent who is struggling to get along with her daughter while hiding the fact that things aren't okay.
I think Stoker is a brilliantly conceived film which could have been exceptional if its execution was just a bit smoother. With a bit more emotion and better editing, I would have enjoyed this more. But I'll give credit where it's due, it's something worth checking out. (3.5/5)
