Category: Action & Thriller

We all take turn within the squad. Since TK was not particularly delighted by my last pick on “My Blueberry Nights”, I let him pick this time. When he texted me with the movie title, I turned to Cynthia and asked the Walking Life! Encyclopedia what “Eastern Promises” was about. Her immediate reply – knowing how bad I am with Hollywood actor names – was “the King Kong girl”. Oh yes! I love the King Kong girl (her name is Naomi Watts by the way). So I was sold. Okay, I wasn’t sold that easily. I did a background check on “Eastern Promises” and found that it has good reviews written all over it. “Are you sure you want to watch that,” I asked Cynthia. Her reply was “Aragorn” (Viggo Mortensen). “Ah … the human!” exclaimed I. Okay, this was going to be an interesting outing.

My first impression of “Eastern Promises” is that the storyline is surprisingly simple, but yet believable. Maybe it is the Russian accents that the actors have created; maybe it is the tattoos, the absence of guns, and the simple explanation of the Russian mafia protocols in London; maybe it is the rather unpredictable storyline with just enough twists to keep the audience engaged. The acting of the Naomi Watts (the midwife), Armin Mueller (the Russian mafia boss in London), Vincent Cassel (his son), and Viggo Mortensen (the driver) are equally convincing. If you enjoy watching thrillers, there is no reason to give this 100 minutes of film a miss. Some of the violent scenes are very realistic though, let me warn you. But I think there is enough humor throughout to soften the rather dark nature of the film.

The Movie Review Squad met unexpectedly at Orchard over the weekend and while Cynthia and TK were having coffee and cake at The Centrepoint, I was assigned to walk over to Cineleisure and pick a movie in the name of spontaneity. If it was up to me, I would have picked a Japanese movie for a change. For lack of a better choice, we settled on “The Kingdom”.

I knew what “The Kingdom” is about and I also knew that this movie is written by Matthew Michael Carnahan – the same screenwriter who wrote “Lions for Lambs”. While “Lions for Lambs” focuses on the politics with the special US operation at Afghanistan as the background, “The Kingdom” centers at the US counter-terrorism investigators inside Saudi Arabia having politics as the background instead. Majority of the movie was filmed on locations in America while part of it was filmed on UAE. Jamie Foxx and Jennifer Garner played the characters of the investigators (a team of 4 in total) and part of the movie reminded me of CSI and Alias. What I really enjoy watching was the acting performance of the two Israeli Arab actors Ashraf Barhom and Ali Suliman. Although “The Kingdom” is lacking in character development – which is understandable as it is a thriller, the bonding development between the US investigators and the Arab guards is perhaps the highlight of the movie. Some of the lighter moments arise due to the cultural differences between American and the Arab are nice to watch, amid such an intense thriller type of plot.

When I reflect upon the storyline, I wonder if the result of the investigation was linked to luck or good preparation or a bit of both. Then again, if the plot manages to entertain, who cares (I actually do unfortunately)? Perhaps not a must-watch type of movie but something to entertain when you run out of ideas.

As I watched how Jodie Foster’s character Erica transformed from a radio show host into someone who sought justice with gun and bullets, I couldn’t help but to feel a strong sense of deja vu having flashbacks from the movie “The Accused (1988)” that won her the Best Actress Oscar and Golden Globe Award. The main different is, in “The Accused”, her character – a rape victim – sought justice in a lawful way.

And that is why I admire Jodie Foster so much – the ability to take on such a wide genre and yet, there is much depth in her acting. “The Brave One” though I must say is dark and at times depressing. The blood and gore due to violence and murder is enough to justify the Singapore’s NC-16 rating. The topic is disturbing as the movie attempts to explore the fear and violence in America and how some people turn to owning guns and ultimately using them. Watching how Jodie Foster’s character dealt with trauma of a thug attack leaving her critically wounded and her fiance dead was enough to draw me deep into this pool of sadness. And watching how her character sought justice outside the law made me wished that she did the otherwise. This shows how engaging Jodie Foster’s acting is, at least to me.

From the storyline point of view, I must confess that part of it seems a bit far fetched and it is by and large predictable. That aside, I think it is a complex movie to film – both in terms of character development as well as how the scenes are composed. It is one hell of a disturbing and dark movie to watch. Be warned. On our way home after the movie, Cynthia turned to ask me why I was so quiet. For one, I just couldn’t get the character Erica out of my mind. Still can’t.

Is “Shoot ‘Em Up” a hollow piece of crap like some reviewers say? Probably yes. Is it like a movie straight out of a comic book or a computer first person shooting game? Probably yes too. But why does it have a mixed review rather than a bad review? The key word is “entertainment”. One scene got some of the audience – I included – clapping and cheering inside the theater. The last I saw that was the ending scene of “Death Proof” – and that scene got more girls cheering than guys.

Yesterday morning, Cynthia left the newspaper opened, pointing at the movie advertisements and in a semi-sleepy-semi-demur way, she said she wanted to watch a show. Got it. So what do you want to watch, I asked. “Shoot ‘Em Up” or “Underdog”, she replied. I called up the rest of the squad (just TK really) and had no answer. Usually TK answers the “call for movie” almost instantaneously. What happened to him? Turned out that I woke him up from a 24-shift and his reply was: Underdog, are you joking? “Shoot ‘Em Up” it was then.

Though the story is downright straightforward (very implausible) with minimal opportunity for character development, the movie does keep the audience in suspense as the story unfolds slowly – at least for the first three quarter of the movie when there are still lots of questions in the audience’s head. The shooting scenes though … my God … have more “bullets per frame” than most of the other movies I have watched. And some of the ways of how a gun is shot are so creative that left me in awe. The mood is mostly dark with dirt and sweat, rats and blood. However, the scenes can be so entertainment that got the audience laughing … at times in a morbid way.

Cynthia finds “Shoot ‘Em Up” entertaining. TK calls it “an entertaining piece of rubbish”. As for me, if Clive Owen was to replace his guns with swords, that would have been made into a typical Chinese ancient story with heroes in special power (you will see what I mean in one of the ending scenes). If you want some dark and brainless entertainment and laugh your brain off after a long hard week of work, perhaps “Shoot ‘Em Up” is an option.

I almost gave into “Transformer” after hearing some surprisingly interesting comments from people around me. Lora, for instance, loves the exciting plot, special effects, and the romance subplot. Another guy friend of mine loves the hot chick inside the movie. Fortunately, Tong Kiat has watched that, did not like it (for example, he cannot tell the good machines from the bad ones during the battle and he blames the … special effects), and when I suggested “Die Hard 4.0”, everybody leaped in joy.

“Die Hard” and I have gone a long way. Though I can’t quite remember where I watched “Die Hard” (1998), I remember vividly where and when I watched “Die Hard 2” (1990). I was just 24 hours away from boarding the plane to fly from London to Hong Kong and I wanted to try something different. I wanted to stay awake the whole night so that I would be able to sleep throughout the flight and wake up fresh in Hong Kong (that did not work). My friends whom let me stay at their apartment back then gamed for this crazy idea of mine and they have rented – on top of many other things – “Die Hard 2”.

I am not sure how many of you remember the plot of “Die Hard 2”. It was about terrorists taking over the entire airport and threatened to crash all the planes until their demands were met. Not exactly the kind of movie to watch just hours before boarding a plane (perhaps that was why I couldn’t sleep on the plane?). In the first “Die Hard” installment, John McClain’s (“Bruce Willis”) wife was stuck in a high-rise that terrorists took over, in “Die Hard 2”, his wife was amongst one of the planes circling above the airport under siege.

Since when action films make logical sense? Just when you thought John’s wife would be loving him for life after these two life changing events, in “Die Hard: With a Vengeance” (1995), their marriage was at the bleak of divorce. John McClain has become an alcoholic under suspension from service. The plot began with a bomb explosion with the man called “Simon” involving John McClain for all his bomb detonation games (and of course that racist sign John has to wear in Harlem when he met Zeus played by “Samuel L. Jackson”).

Almost 20 years have passed since “Die Hard” was released that shot Bruce Willis to stardom. I have to say, Bruce doesn’t seem to age a bit. At 52, he still looks amazingly agile and I think it all comes down to the “cool factor” he has. If the success measurements of an action film are the variety of parties in pursuit, the explosion, the tight plot, and a sense of humor, “Die Hard 4.0” has scored high in my book. Many people enjoy and amuse at how indestructible John McClain is (hence the franchise title, “Die Hard”). To me, it is how straightforward John McClain is (he doesn’t plan, he has an idea and execute it) and how he gets the kick of the entire execution and is actually enjoying doing it. A man with no perceived fear. That spirit of directness and self-enjoyment is what I enjoy watching installments after installments.

I have watched quite a few movies that try to tackle the theme cyberspace. It either over simplifies what lies within – like hacking into an account with a guessed password at first attempt or by typing something as silly as “hack this account” – or portraits geeks as someone who type really fast in front of multiple screens. “Die Hard 4.0” tackles the topic of cyber-criminology (hence the version number “4.0”) and while there are still rooms for improvement, it does strike a good balance between what may satisfy those who are computer savvy and a good sense of entertainment. So it comes with no surprise that in this installment, John McClain’s partner is a geek named Matt Farrell (played by “Justin Long”) who has decent acting skills. Since John is now officially divorced, his long time wife Holly is out of the picture and into the picture is John’s daughter Lucy McClane (played by “Mary Elizabeth Winstead”). After the movie, I asked Cynthia if she remembered which movies have “Mary Elizabeth Winstead” acted in as I did seem to have some vague ideas. Turns out that Winstead has also acted in “Death Proof”, which we have watched recently.

All three of us from Movie Review Squad love “Die Hard 4.0”. If you are into the genre of action or you have already seen some of the previous installments, you really should not miss this one. Try not to think too hard (though I must say there are parts of the plot that don’t quite make sense to me) and you will certainly get entertained.

An after thought: How could I possibly forget to mention the “Mission Impossible: III” girl Maggie Q? Okay, I think she has played her role well and I can understand why some guys are crazy over her. For “Die Hard 4.0”, Bruce Willis is my hero. Make no mistake.