Movie Review: Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) (2D)

March 30, 2013 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

jack-giant-slayer-poster

My first impression of Jack the Giant Slayer, just from the title alone, was that it was going to suck. I had imagined it to be another lame Hollywood attempt to cash in on a popular fairy tale, in the vein of recent bombs such as Red Riding Hood, Mirror Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman, Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters, and so forth.

But then I discovered that it stars Nicholas Hoult, probably still best known for playing the kid in About a Boy, but has since shot to fame with X-Men: First Class, Warm Bodies, and being Jennifer Lawrence’s ex-boyfriend. The rest of the cast is great too, with Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci and Ian McShane all playing key roles. Importantly, it’s directed by Bryan Singer (X-Men, Superman Returns, Valkyrie, X-Men: First Class), whose cinematic style, visual flair and knack for action I have always appreciated.

I’m glad to say I checked it out in the end, because Jack the Giant Slayer, for all its faults, is by far the best of the recent fairy tale movies mentioned above. The film knows its limits and sticks to what can it can do best, which is loads of giant action, battle scenes, likable characters and a simple but familiar story line about a boy growing into an unlikely hero.

The story needs little explanation. In a magical land which according to legend was once ruled by giants, Jack (Hoult), a farm boy comes across some special beans. A princess (Eleanor Tomlinson) disappears and Jack joins a search team headed by King’s guard Elmont (McGregor) and adviser Lord Roderick (Tucci), the princess’s future husband. You can fill in the gaps.

The light romance and the straightforward humour in this film work because they don’t overwhelm the engaging and often clever action, the special ingredient that elevates Jack the Giant Killer above your average CGI flick. The final battle sequence, in particular, is as exciting as anything I’ve seen so far this year.

On the downside, I suppose the CGI could have been stronger, given that Singer chose to animate the giants entirely with computer graphics as opposed to “enlarging” real actors with special effects. My guess is because he wanted to make the giants less human, with long, dangly limbs, weird faces and various deformities. They looked more like beautifully rendered video game characters than “real” giants, but perhaps I’m asking for too much.

Hoult, with his lanky, boyish charisma, looks like he is ready to be a major star. While he doesn’t carry the film he is the one who keeps the film rolling. Tomlinson is a great match for him as Princess Isabelle, while McGregor and Tucci are always two guys you would welcome in any movie. Ian McShane, whom some might recognise as Blackbeard from the Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, provides both laughs and stoicism in his role as King Brahmwell. As for the giants, the most memorable one is played via motion capture by two veteran stars — Bill Nighy and John Kassir (the Crypt Keeper from Tales From the Crypt!!!).

To sum things up, Jack the Giant Slayer is an enjoyable popcorn movie that should appeal to kids and adults who just want a bit of escapist fun for a couple of hours. It’s not special and certainly not memorable, but considering how badly it could have gone I’d call it both a formulaic success and a pleasant surprise.

3.75 stars out of 5

PS: I have to admit that I only knew there was the fairy tale Jack and the Beanstalk and had no idea that there was also a closely related one called Jack the Giant Killer. Jack the Giant Slayer is loosely based on a combination of both.

Movie Review: A Good Day to Die Hard (2013)

February 20, 2013 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

a-good-day-to-die-hard_13602342020

The Die Hard franchise has been on progressive decline since the 1988 original, which I still believe to this day is the best action movie of all time. The 1990 sequel, Die Hard 2: Die Harder, is a surprisingly excellent action flick in its own right, while the 1995  Die Hard With a Vengeance is a prime example of a fantastic franchise reboot. All three can be considered action classics. The series took a bigger step back with 2007′s Die Hard 4.0 (or Live Free or Die Hard), where the 12-year gap had an unwelcome effect on the now-iconic John McClane, though it was still a relatively good movie. And now, the fifth and newest addition, A Good Day to Die Hard (let’s call it DH5 for simplicity sake), has fallen off the wagon and taken this great franchise down into the pits.

DH5 is not horrible by typical modern action movie standards, but it is a smear on the Die Hard franchise whichever way you look at it. In this one, John McClane (Bruce Willis) heads to Russia to “rescue” his son Jack (played by Aussie Jai Courtney), who has been arrested for a murder linked to  an imprisoned political prisoner. Mayhem ensues, and this time the McClane father and son duo team up to annihilate the bad guys.

I’m not sure what they were trying to achieve with this plodding effort, which has a lot of guns and explosions and cars flying all over the place, but not much real tension, humour or genuine excitement. Perhaps they were trying to emulate the awesomeness of Taken or the Bourne series (ie, an unstoppable good guy beats up a lot of bad guys), which I believe is a huge mistake.

The earlier Die Hard films featured a reluctant, vulnerable McClane caught in situations he didn’t want to be in, which is why they were so full of tension and nervous energy. In the last two of the series, however, John McClane has ceased to be the old John McClane we know and love. He has become the “new” John McClane, some kind of hardened superhero who never gets rattled or hurt no matter how many times he is tossed around in moving metal, beaten up or dropped from ridiculously high places. He has too much cache from past experiences to be vulnerable. He’s like Bruce Willis in Unbreakable without the fear of water.

As a result, the DH5 is generally predictable (even with the twists) and frequently lame. Even though there’s all this stuff happening on the screen, there’s just no excitement because you know he’s John McClane and John McClane can never be beaten. Worst still, this new McClane has no special hand-to-hand combat skills like say a Jason Bourne or Bryan Mills — he’s just a guy who likes to fire a lot of guns and doesn’t get hit himself.

Part of the problem is the direction of John Moore, who was previously at the helm of Max Payne and the remake of The Omen in 2006. We also had the “new” John McClane in DH4 (directed by Len Wiseman from the Underworld series), but that film was still pretty good, so some of the blame has to go to Moore, who let his foot off the gas pedal too often and relied far too much on obvious digital effects in many of the action sequences.

The biggest culprit is likely the script by Skip Woods (Swordfish, Hitman, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and The A-Team), which is not very good at all. The dialogue is horrendous in both English and Russian and the attempts at creating some sort of father-son dynamic between the McClanes come off as clunky and out of place, largely because it feels so obligatory. McClane’s wry humour and one-liners, one of the defining traits of his character, is almost non-existent as well. Don’t get me wrong, there are efforts to lighten the mood, but they rarely felt like they meshed with the flow of the film.

The Die Hard franchise has always stretched the bounds of craziness, but a lot of what happens in DH5 is just plain lazy. Why don’t people bleed to death from untreated gun shots and puncture wounds? Why do Russian people who generally speak Russian to each other feel the need to squeeze in a sentence of English every now and then? Why do they suddenly start speaking completely in English  towards the end? Why do some of their Russian accents even start disappearing? Why does Jack McClane have to say his dad’s name, “John”, at least once every sentence? We know his name is John; we’ve known that for the last four films! Who the heck talks like that?

Bruce Willis is still good enough to pull off John McClane, but I can’t help get the feeling that he’s growing a little weary and is ready to pass the baton to Jai Courtney, who is physically imposing but looks more like a bad guy than a good one (he was the bad guy in Jack Reacher and felt much more convincing). The rest of the cast is predominantly Russian and none are memorable. None even come close to possessing the charisma of a Hans Gruber (Alan Rickman from the original) or even a Simon Peter Gruber (Jeremy Irons from the third film), let’s just put it that way. That’s another problem to add to the list — lame antagonists.

When all is said and done, DH5 is actually a passable action film by ordinary standards, but a criminally bad one when measured against the lofty bar set by the earlier entries in the same franchise. It’s a real shame because I think they could have done much much better, especially if they are considering bringing together John McClane and both of his kids (that’s Jai Courtney and Mary Elizabeth Winstead, the latter of whom has a cameo in this one after appearing in DH4) in a sixth and potentially final Die Hard film.

2.5 stars out of 5

Movie Review: Taken 2 (2012)

October 21, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

The moral of the story is simple: don’t f*&% with Liam Neeson.

After getting a thorough ass-whooping in the first film, which I declared was one of the best action films of the past decade, those pesky Albanians did not learn their lesson. The father of one of the human traffickers wanted revenge, and he was going to make Bryan Mills pay with a lot more inept henchmen. Bad idea.

I may sound like I’m teasing, but I actually enjoyed Taken 2 a lot. It was impossible to live up to the original anyway, which surprised just about everyone with its brutal efficiency and the total badassness of Neeson’s Mills, a former CIA operative who can kill you in just about every way imaginable. True, Taken 2 is a lazy and completely unnecessary sequel that is even more far-fetched than the original, and let’s face it, was made with only $$$ in mind, but it still manages to thrill by re-captivating some of the magic of the original.

The premise ofTaken 2 is about as unimaginative as it gets: the father of the dude whom Mills electrocuted in the first film in Paris promises to avenge his son’s death. Mills is in Istanbul for freelance security work and is visited by his ex-wife (Famke Janssen) — who is conveniently having “problems” with her second husband — and their daughter (Maggie Grace, who is surprisingly convincing as someone young enough to be going for her driver’s licence). Nasty henchmen try to “take” them all (and succeeds with two of them, hence Taken “2″ — get it?), unleashing the killing machine in Mills once again.

Taken 2 steals shamelessly from its predecessor without really attempting to do anything new or different. Liam Neeson shows off some incredible secret agent brains in addition to killing enemies with guns, melee weapons and his bare hands, and Maggie Grace has a much larger role, but that’s about it. Director Olivier Megaton (surely that cannot be a real name), whose previous efforts include Columbiana and Transporter 3, replaces Pierre Morel, but I didn’t really feel that much of a difference in style. There are gun fights, hand-to-hand combat and car chases galore, all of it happening at break-neck speed after the predictable initial set-up.

The script, written again by Luc Besson and Robert Mark Kamen, is lazy — there’s no way to deny that. It assumes we know what Bryan Mills is and what he and has family have been through, and character development is essentially provided through flashbacks to the first film. The bad guy is pretty pathetic and is driven only by revenge, but at the same time he has some strange reasons for not wanting to kill Mills when given the opportunity. The Albanians also sometimes speak to each other in what I presume is Albanian, and at other times in English with Eastern European accents — none of it makes much sense.

But on the other hand, there’s nothing quite like watching the captivating Neeson — who is 60 years old in real life, by the way — run around beating up and killing a whole bunch of bad guys. It’s brainless entertainment but it’s fun and exciting while it lasts.

In other words, if you enjoyed Taken, there’s a good chance you’ll enjoy parts, or at least elements, of Taken 2. It’s no secret that the film was cashing in on the success of the original, which is vastly superior in every way, but watching Liam Neeson go on a rampage for an action-packed 91 minutes is still preferable to the majority of action films these days.

3.5 stars out of 5!

PS: If there is going to be a third film, which is highly possible given the loose ends in the script, I’ll definitely be watching.

Movie Review: Premium Rush (2012)

August 26, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Unfortunately, Premium Rush is not quite premium. It’s fresh, occasionally thrilling and funny,  and I respect what director David Koepp (Ghost Town, Secret Window) was aiming for, but for all its action the film deserved a much better script.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who has certainly been shooting up my list of favourite actors as of late, plays Wilee, a bicycle messenger in New York City. The dude is nuts: weaves through rush hour traffic at top speeds, does crazy stunts and doesn’t even have brakes on his treasured bike. And he’s also a walking (riding) cliche: a clever kid who dropped out of law school so he can earn peanuts while putting his life in danger on the road every day — because it’s cool, I guess.

So on this day, Wilee picks up a package from his alma mater to deliver to Chinatown, and as it turns out, some corrupt cop (played by Michael Shannon) wants it real bad. You don’t really find out the details of this mystery from the start but the film gradually fills you in as it moves along using time-jumping flashbacks and rewinds, usually when it’s taking a break from all the high speed chases.

Premium Rush is an interesting idea (although perhaps not an original one — it’s being sued for copying the novel The Ultimate Rush, about a rollerblading messenger who gets mixed up with some baddies). But I was concerned about how this film, even at a brisk 91 minutes, could keep up the adrenaline rush that it promises to deliver.

For the most part, the film delivers in terms of providing white knuckle action. The bicycle scenes are pure insanity, almost making you like these bike messengers that you would ordinarily want to murder for acting so recklessly on the road. I’m sure quite a lot of special effects and CGI are used in delivering the action, but the scenes generally look very realistic. If you stick around during the credits you’ll see that Gordon-Levitt clearly did some of his own stunts.

Where Premium Rush fails is the script. The so-called mystery plot device inserted to maintain audience interest is unnecessarily convoluted and filled with Asian stereotypes that border on offensive. (I know the film predominantly caters towards Western audiences, but surely they could have hired actors who can actually speak Chinese? Come on!).

The dialogue had a few funny lines sprinkled throughout but on the whole it was atrocious. This was the type of film where every time the characters spoke you had to deduct points. There was one particular bar scene between Gordon Levitt and his (ex?) girlfriend, played by Dania Ramirez from Heroesthat evoked one of my worst cinematic cringes so far this year.

Gordon-Levitt is believable and likable as the smooth-taking and fast-riding Wilee, as I expected he would be, but Michael Shannon felt somewhat over the top as the crazy immoral cop. But at least he had fun with it. The one I have to single out is Jamie Chung, who has to win some sort of award for the worst fake Chinese accent of all-time. This is really more the casting agent’s fault than hers because apparently Chung is a second generation Korean-American who really has no business trying to speak Chinese or put on a fake Chinese accent. It was horrible and shows just how few roles there are for Asian actresses in Hollywood.

Overall, Premium Rush is strictly an escapist popcorn movie that’s all style and very little substance. The film had its share of cool and exciting moments, but unless you’re really into bike riding it’s unlikely you’ll find it anything more than slightly above average. I enjoyed the action but the various flaws bothered me too much for me to give it anything higher than…

3 stars out of 5

Movie Review: Lockout (2012)

July 14, 2012 in Movie Reviews, Reviews

Taken in space? I’m sold.

That, at least, was the advertised premise of Lockout, a sci-fi action movie co-written by French master (I use that term loosely) Luc Besson. Some time in the future, the US government decides to send its worst prisoners off into a maximum security prison in space, where they will be put under “stasis” (ie, sleep), for the duration of their sentences (I suppose to save money?). Somehow, the president’s daughter (Maggie Grace) ends up there, prisoners break loose, and there’s only one man that can save the day — Snow (Guy Pearce) — a former CIA operative arrested for murdering an undercover colleague.

Sounds pretty exciting, right?

Lockout hasn’t gotten many decent reviews but it’s not as bad as people have made it out to be. While Guy Pearce is not necessarily the man you would picture as a badass CIA operative (after all, he only recently played possibly the oldest man in the world in Prometheus), the Aussie actor is clearly the standout of the film. He oozes screen presence and actually looks the part, all buffed and toned. But it’s his ability to hit the mark on all of Snow’s awesome one-liners that makes Lockout an occasionally enjoyable ride. Even if the action doesn’t quite get there for you, the humour might.

Speaking of the action, that’s where Lockout struggles to differentiate itself from other films of the genre. The fight scenes are surprisingly meek and there’s not a whole lot of creativity. There is one combat scene that makes use of the space concept, but that’s about it. There’s almost not much of a climax, or at least one that is worthy of a mention. It’s a shame because it essentially wastes the fact that they are in space! Space!

The special effects also don’t provide much to talk about. In fact, while there are a few “outdoor’ shots, almost everything takes place inside the prison, so those expecting an spectacular spacecraft battles are likely to be disappointed.

The biggest problem with Lockout might be the villains. It’s a space prison with the worst mankind has to offer, but there aren’t any memorable baddies. They may be crazy or menacing but no one has any…personality. If you think of a film like Con Air, chances are you’ll remember an assortment of interesting bad guys. In Lockout, it never really feels like the bad guys were given a chance to do anything.

Despite all the complaints, I didn’t think Lockout was painful to watch. It could have been so much more, but instead it ended up just being an average sci-fi/action film boosted by a great comedic performance by Guy Pearce.

3 out of 5