Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part I

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, The Movie is brilliant - brilliant in squeezing every last cent out of fans and moviegoers by splitting into two parts. I can't think of another good reason for doing that. I have not read the book, which is supposed to be the last chapter in the series, but judging from Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I (or Harry Potter #7.1), the split is highly unnecessary. Part I meanders after the events in The Half Blood Prince (Harry Potter #6) where a key character is killed and the three witchy heroes, the titular Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), smart and resourceful Hermione (Emma Watson) and near-pointless Ron (Rupert Grint) are off to find lost artefacts that could help them defeat the evil wizard Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes). Instead of hurrying on a quest full of adventure and thrill to save the world, the kids mope, quarrel and brood across gloomy wintery landscapes for almost the entire running time. Add gratuitous bloodletting for flavour.

I'm not sure if it was the original intention of the book to drag out events that transpired in Part I. Intended or not, it doesn't work onscreen. You don't do "character development" for the sake of doing it if the material is lacking punch (the good stuff all went to Part II, I heard), or that the young cast is not capable of handling the acting baggage (Part I devotes most of its time to melodramatic, talky scenes). Basically, they just didn't have enough interesting material for two movies to share. I also missed the whimsical tone and melodic score of past Potter movies. This darker, violent, gloomy, dull sequel just doesn't feel like a Harry Potter movie.

Regardless, you'll need to watch this anyway if you have been following the series up till now. Good luck to Part II.

Definitely not for newcomers.

Not cool: The amped up violence; one nude scene that felt a little inappropriate.

Saw it at: Golden Village Jurong Point, weekend morning show.

Cost: Free (courtesy of HSBC Reward Programme)

Review: Moon

If you like your science fiction smart, you can't go wrong with "Moon". In the near future, when mankind has depleted all sources of fuel and energy and put the world in turmoil, The Lunar Corporation concocts a brilliant solution - harvest the untapped source of Helium 3 from the surface of the moon. One brave astronaut miner Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) has the unenviable task of running the mining facility all alone for three years straight. Not very cost effective to be shuttling back and forth Earth and the moon, you see. When his contract is about to expire, strange things start to happen. These events threaten to ruin his long-anticipated family reunion on Earth.

"Moon" borrows ideas from other science fiction stories, and doesn't really have anything groundbreaking to offer except that it is executed really well. It's also a great demonstration of what you could accomplish with just a $5 million budget and one really good actor. The entire movie is held up by Rockwell's central performance. If it were another actor of lesser talent, the whole movie would have faltered. Worth a watch.

Format: DVD, anamorphic widescreen.
Source: Rental (Arts Brother, Jurong Point 1 Level 3)

Experience: Home, 47-inch LCD with home theatre surround system
Cost: SGD $4

Review: The Detective

A good take on the well-worn detective genre, brought to you by the people behind the Hong Kong horror hit, "The Eye". Following very closely to formula, the movie starts off with an odd character named Lung (Shing Fui-On) who engages the help of private investigator Tam (Aaron Kwok) to find a mysterious woman named Sum, who may be trying to kill Lung. Typically, the P.I. follows a trail that leads to one dead body after another before the horrific truth is unveiled.

There is nothing much here that you couldn't find in another detective story, but the movie is visually intriguing, and entertains with the central relationship between Tam and his Thai police connection, played with great relish by prolific Hong Kong supporting actor Liu Kai-Chi. There's also a rogue's gallery of TVB familiars taking up various supporting roles.

Frankly, I'm surprised the whole endeavour holds up so well. The direct Cantonese translation of the title is "C-plus Detective", which is a word play on the Cantonese equivalent of "Private Investigator". The movie is easily a "B+". Recommended.

Format: DVD, looks like a 2.40:1 Anamorphic Widescreen.
Source: Belongs to my brother.
Experience: Home, 47-inch LCD with home theatre surround system
Cost: Apart from electricity and hardware depreciation, none.

Review: The Expendables

For those who are born after 1990, you may not be familiar with Sylvester Stallone, who was one of the action movie kings of the Eighties, along with Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Van Damme, etc. Stallone was most famous for playing slow-witted pugilist Rocky Balboa in the Oscar-winning movie, Rocky, and its five sequels. His other famous role is John Rambo, whose name is now synonymous with reckless, gung-ho behaviours. You've probably seen this image somewhere before:

Quite a sight, huh? Believe it or not, at 64 years of age, he's actually BIGGER now. Anyway, one day he decides to make a movie called The Expendables, about the titular team of mercenaries who gets personal dealing with a South American dictator-cum-drug lord. This would be the one that would bring all his former competitors together in the same film, and lets them kick ass like they used to twenty years ago.

Think of it like the Justice League or the Ocean's Eleven of Pixar's Up. But it's not really that, because most of the big stars only guest appears, while the team of Expendables only consist of a balanced mix of old and young stars. Well, if you consider Jason Statham, Jet Li, "Stone Cold" Steve Austin and Randy Couture to be "young". You'd be sorely disappointed if you expected to see the action gods trade one-liners with each other while mowing down hordes of bad guys with submachine guns in unison. The movie is supposed to be a throwback to action movies of the Eighties, but it's not even that either, because of the frequent use of "shaky cam" that is uncharacteristic of those types of movies.

What we ended up having on the big screen is a fairly watchable, entertaining but unexpectedly goofy little movie, with more male-bonding awkwardness than there are badassery. You can find more badass moments in any single Tarantino movie. The movie it most resembles and reminded me of is The A-Team.

You can't blame poor Stallone for not trying. Apparently, making these sort of "ensemble" movies is really, really freakin' hard. Check out the stuff that went on behind the scenes here.

Rating: Average.

Saw it at: Golden Village Jurong Point, regular evening show.

Cost: SGD 10 (weekend rates) 

Review: Resident Evil (Part 1)

With a silly name like Resident Evil, it could not be anything else but the name of a Japanese video game. Ironically, the game is originally called "Biohazard" in Japan, which is significantly less silly. The game puts you in the roles of police officers investigating the source of a viral outbreak that turned the inhabitants of Raccoon City into reanimated corpses, also affectionately known as zombies. Armed with a vast array of modern weaponry, you explore a spooky mansion filled with a menagerie of zombies and strange creatures that escaped from the secret laboratory complex underneath the ground. The villain is a faceless global conglomerate known as the Umbrella Corporation, responsible for conducting illegal experiments that led to the outbreak.

The movie explores the same world but from the perspective of Umbrella employee Alice (Milla Jovovich), who lives in the aforementioned mansion. She is unconscious, alone and amnesiac when she first appears at the beginning of the outbreak. Circumstances forced her to join a group of mercenaries hired by Umbrella to investigate the sudden loss of communication from the secret laboratory. In tow are fellow amnesiac Spence (James Purefoy) who may be connected to Alice in some ways, and Matt (Ugly Betty's Eric Mabius), a cop looking for his sister who works in the lab. As with all "haunted house" movies, the assorted bunch of characters are stuck in the building, and must find a way to survive and escape the place. Most of them won't.

Like the game, Resident Evil is an amalgamation of horror, sci-fi and action that somehow works for me. Maybe it's the entertaining action/horror sequences, or Michelle Rodriguez wisecracking, or just Jovovich being such great eye candy. To her credit, Jovovich also brings some level of unexpected badassery to a female role that is always rare in movies. Like any good male action hero, she takes charge of bad situations, gets physically roughed up, and chambers a round in a shotgun like she means it. There are also some clever ideas to be found, like the way the character's amnesia is used to reveal key events.

You can say that Resident Evil is no different and no less sillier than movies like Clash of the Titans and The Mummy, except that its action sequences have a little more kick to it since the violence is not restrained by a family-friendly rating. Personally, I found it entertaining enough to rewatch numerous times on Blu-Ray. Others may wish to proceed cautiously, since enough critics have hated it.

Cautiously recommended!

The Blu-Ray: It's great to revisit the movie and find everything so sharp and detailed. I can finally read the small prints on the Red Queen cam. The disc also contains all of the special features from the special edition DVD, including the entertaining audio commentary by the cast. I didn't notice anything that is missing. The pop-up menu looks appropriately tech-y, but I've seen better. I'm no sound aficionado, but as long as there's some surround effects and strong bass for gunfire and explosions, I'm good.

The case is about as creative as any other Blu-Rays in the market, with nothing except the disc plus one promotional (and completely disposable) slip inside the case. Watch out for the spoiler-iffic picture at the back of the case.

Format: Blu-Ray, looks like 1.85:1 Anamorphic Widescreen (First viewing was in a cinema.)



Source: Purchased


Experience: Home, 47-inch LCD with 5.1 home theatre surround system

I like the Resident Evil movies. Does that mean my standards are poor?

It's not in the game: Gun-tottin' Milla Jovovich

Review: Inception

Warning: There may be spoilers!

The moment I knew that it was all just a big fantasy was when I realised that a bunch of guys could earn tons of money just by sleeping all day long.

Perhaps only director-writer Christopher Nolan (The Dark Knight) could make such a snooze-worthy premise become a hugely entertaining movie. Inception is a sci-fi thriller about a bunch of people who possess the technology to infiltrate a person's mind when he or she is fast asleep and dreaming. At first glance, you wanted to pity the inventor of such a device because what practical use could anyone have with it except to check out another person's weird, wet and wild dreams? Apparently, these "extractors", led by expert extractor Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio, The Departed) found a lucrative use for such a device, that is of "stealing" ideas or secrets through a person's dream; for example, industrial secrets from a rival corporate head. Sort of like mind-reading, but more visceral. Japanese businessman Saito (Ken Watanabe, Batman Begins) requires such talents, but a simple mind heist just would not do for this entrepreneur. Instead, Saito wants Cobb to do an "inception", a rarely successful process of implanting an idea into somebody's grey cells. The target is his business competitor's son, Robert Fischer, Jr. (Cillian Murphy, Batman Begins), the newly appointed successor to his father's throne. Naturally, things never, ever go as expected, especially when Cobb's personal nightmares start to literally appear to sabotage his plans.

Inception shares some similarities to movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Cell, and Dreamscape, where a certain individual or individuals are given the ability to invade a person's mind and occupy it like it's another world or dimension, scientifically or supernaturally. Nolan's take is a little more "grounded", so to speak, as his dreamworlds are a little more realistic and bounded by the laws of physics (for most of the time at the least). The excuse is that the Extractors are like conmen who must trick their target into believing that he is still in the real world in order to achieve their objective, so they must "build" a dreamworld that resembles reality, at least for their target. Thus, people in the Inception dreamworld still has to get into fisticuffs and gunfights and leap away from explosions, although that last one may just be more at home in that kind of place. Some people were disappointed because Nolan did not go all out and make his heroes drop entire buildings onto bad guys by just willing it with their minds. It would be fun if Cobb and co. could actually will people into bunnies or toasters. I think Nolan was not trying to portray dreams authentically, but to establish a new mythology based on dreams, with its own set of rules and conditions. For example, the concept of "projections", deaths within dreams, dreams within dreams, and the passage of time in the dreamworld.

Despite all the thinking exercises, Inception plays just like a heist thriller not unlike Ocean's Eleven or The Italian Job. The heist bit brings a lot of action and excitement, while the subplot of Cobb's troubling secret keeps the tension up, emotions high, and the mystery intriguing. The movie is also well-supported by a crew of revered acting talents that include Academy Award nominees Watanabe, DiCaprio, Pete Postlethwaite (Clash of the Titans), Tom Berenger (Training Day) and Ellen Page (Juno), winner Marion Cotillard (Public Enemies), Murphy, Joseph Gordon-Levitt ((500) Days of Summer) and future Mad Max, Tom Hardy (Bronson, Star Trek: Nemesis).

Highly recommended.

P.S. Seems like a lot of people were pretty vocal about how they disliked certain things, e.g. the ambiguous ending, the lack of fantastical sceneries a la The Cell, or how it could have been more "brilliant" even after they proclaimed it as just that only a few sentences earlier. Frankly, with something as rarely clever and as entertaining as Inception, any complaint would seem like severe and uncalled-for nitpicking. But since everyone's doing it, I would like to join in the fun and submit one of my own pick of the nit. Well, one thing that still annoys me now is the question of how an Extractor could actually "steal" ideas or secret from inside someone's dream. Let's say, if you want to steal a new car design from the mind of an engineer. After finding the "safe" in the engineer's mind, and taking the "secret", usually represented by a document folder in this movie, what next? It's not like when you wake up, the document would magically materialise in your hand, right? If not, does that mean that you would have to memorise the document somehow? That may be difficult if the secret you're stealing is a bunch of engineering schematics and you have close to zero understanding about automobile engineering. In the opening sequence, Cobb stole Saito's "secret" represented by a bunch of papers with the word "CONFIDENTIAL" stamped across every page, and he was actually reading it while on the run from Saito's "projections". Was he looking for something specific, or memorising the entire stack? I'm not sure if they were double-sided, but there are at least ten minute's worth of reading material there judging from the density of text even on one side of each sheet (and that's not even counting the time you may need to memorise it!), and Cobb went through it in a second. Maybe the documents are "saved" in Cobb's subconscious, where it can only be "read" again by entering Cobb's dreams, presumably by whomever that hired him to steal the docs in the first place. I doubt anyone would pay loads of cash to an Extractor just to hear them say that, "Yup, your competitor's definitely going with the red one."

Review: Where The Wild Things Are

Where The Wild Things Are is a children's fantasy based on the very illustrated 1963 book of the same name by Maurice Sendak. It is set in the comtemporary world, following the adventures of a young and angry boy named Max (the actor is also called Max, Max Records) who disappears into the world of the Wild Things after running away from a fight he had with his struggling single mom, played by Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich). The Wild Things are enormous bear-like talking creatures with huge heads and an appetite for kids like Max. The boy smartly pretends to be a king from a distant land to avoid becoming Wild Food, and organises some activities to keep the pack together. The wildest of the bunch, Carol (James Gandolfini) was at first ecstatic about having a new little ruler, but soon starts to grow frustratingly suspicious about Max's dubious royal roots.

This movie comes highly recommended from certain critics, and was even worthy enough to enter a few 2009 top tens. It is also one of the more disappointing fares of the year for me, especially after believing all the endorsements from noted online critics. Although very competently made under the direction of Spike Jonze, who churned out the one-of-a-kind Being John Malkovich, the movie's main problem for me is that it's a bore. There is a character arc for Max, but its lacking genuine drama and feels like its going through the motions of a typical morality kid's tale. The oft-kilter vibe of the Wild Things doesn't help either. There were attempts to make the creatures lovable, but they still felt inappropriately creepy and unnerving. Even Carol spoke in an Italian-American accent (by no other than goodfella Mr. Tony Soprano himself), which took me out of the movie every time he spoke. I don't know why, but using a British accent in fantasies, science fiction, and historical epics is always effective in helping the audience to suspend their sense of disbelief, even add some credibility to preposterous scenes or expositions.

This movie reminded me of another critically acclaimed kid's movie that also turned into a Big Movie Snooze-fest: The Dark Crystal.

If you enjoyed the movie, then good for you, and do write to me about it, because I genuinely want to like the movie and perhaps the answer will come to light in your comments about it. I didn't enjoy it, found it boring, and at this point in time can't possibly, wholeheartedly recommend this to anyone else.

Check this out! - Inception

Even if it's Christopher Nolan ripping off The Matrix, I still want to watch this piece of plagiarism.

Review: The Book of Eli

What happens when you combine Blade with I Am Legend? You get another science fiction actioner for another prominent African-American actor, Mr. Denzel Washington. The million-dollar question is, is it any good? For a sci-fi actioner based on no existing franchise, The Book of Eli exceeds general expectations.

Set in a futuristic post-apocalyptic world (Which movie world nowadays isn't?), the movie follows seasoned survivalist Eli on his spiritual quest to deliver a mysterious book to an undisclosed location and person. Seems that an implied recent nuclear holocaust has reduced the world into a barren, brutal wasteland. The survivors no longer have the luxury of civility and humanity when even the basic necessities of life are scarce. As dictated by the requirements of the genre, Eli is of course gifted in the murder arts, which conveniently explains his longevity in such a ruthless environment. On the way, he meets Carnegie (Gary Oldman in his trademarked villain mode) who runs a water-rich town like a don and coincidentally has a strong interest in Eli's delivery package. Bloody carnage ensues. The movie is backed by a star-studded cast that includes Punisher No.3 Ray Stevenson, Dumbledore 2.0 Michael Gambon, the Flashdancing Jennifer Beals, That Seventies Showing Mila Kunis and A Clockwork Orangy Malcolm McDowell.

The movie is pretty realistic in depicting a post-apocalyptic world, so people who like realism or some intelligence in their action diet would have little to complain here. I'm only not convinced by Kunis' virginal character, although there's a passable logic behind it. The action sequences obviously does not pass the realism test, but what's a junk food without a little MSG? Give Eli an arsenal from any era and he'll dispatch a roomful of stock henchmen with unexplained superhuman efficiency.

The movie touches on the controversial topic of religion and actually has something interesting to say. There is also a Shyamalan-worthy end twist that gives you the urge to rewatch the movie, as you may have already heard from other movie critics. This is a solid sci-fi actioner that is definitely worth your time.

Format: DVD, 2.40:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
Source: Rental (Arts Brother, Jurong Point 1 Level 3)
Experience: Home, 47-inch LCD with home theatre surround system
Cost: SGD $4

The cardboard slipcase is unnecessarily extravagant as it repeats the artwork on the DVD case and serve no other purpose except to protect the case. Ironic, considering the subject matter.

There's a bleak but scenic spread that greets every opening. Less interesting is the disc artwork.

Blessed art thy maker, who hath maketh thee anamorphic widescreen. All is right in the world. - The Book of Wei Lam, Chapter 2, Verse 40:1.

Five more to go...

Anamorphic problems even in U.S. releases

The anamorphic woes continue. Previously, I have written about how the Red Cliff Part I DVD was not "anamorphic" and the image quality was not worthy of a high-definition LCD TV presentation. Inspired by a discussion on Facebook, I rummaged my DVD storage for my copy of Silence of the Lambs, the serial killer thriller that popularised the character of Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), hoping to relive the grisly world that the bad doctor resides in. To my horror, the disc also suffers the same problem as the Red Cliff disc, as the video appeared squashed on the original or 16:9 aspect ratio setting.

Jodie Foster looking like prime material for Buffalo Bill's makeover.

Changing the TV ratio setting to 4:3 corrects Jodie Foster's fat quotient. However, this proves that the video was modified to fit the squarish frame of televisions of yore, and not widescreen televisions. Notice that Jodie looks just right, but because the presentation won't fit a rectangular widescreen TV, hence there are two vertical bars on the left and right. 

You can't really fix this, unless you can "zoom in" to fill the screen more, but the video quality will look worse, and the grainy, un-mastered condition doesn't help the situation. Getting the anamorphic Silence of the Lambs DVD or Blu-Ray is the best option if money is not an issue. The movie was shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio, so the picture should fit the screen fully like this:

I should have used these graphic examples to highlight the problems on the Red Cliff I DVD. You guys may have been and maybe still are a little confused about my babblings on that post. But it's the same problem there and here.

What's frustrating is that the DVD packaging indicates prominently that the disc is made for widescreen presentation.

It didn't say that it was anamorphic, though. But that's like saying you could sell me a car without a steering wheel if they didn't mention it having one in the manual.

I bought the DVD probably five years or more ago, likely from Choa Chu Kang Laser Flair, Lot One branch. (Don't worry, Laser Flair, I won't charge. Free publicity.) High definition TVs weren't so prevalent during those days, so I guess people didn't take much notice of the ratio and anamorphic issues, including yours truly. I'm sure I played this very DVD for more than ten times (on my still-alive ten-year-old JVC cathode ray tube television, of course) and still never noticed anything wrong!  

Can't remember how much I paid for this. No special features.

Nice, freaky DVD box design, though. Sssssslurp!

If you want to know more about anamorphic DVDs, this site explains it pretty well.

MUST WATCH: A brand new test footage of MORTAL KOMBAT!

IRON BABY

Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street 2: Freddy's Revenge

In my review of the original A Nightmare On Elm Street (ANOES), I forgot to mention another reason why the Freddy Krueger movies aren't scary to me. I'm not sure about your own experiences, but my dreams are usually very hazy, disjointed, frightening, monochromatic, without any sense of time, and mostly beyond my control, like as if they were scripted events - just like a movie! (See Minority Report's psychic scan sequences, which is the closest cinematic representation of dream sequences I've seen so far, even though they're not exactly representing dreams in the movie.) However, when a person dreams in the Elm Street movies, it's like he or she is entering an alternate, parallel world or dimension that progresses in real time, where people can have a substantial amount of free will, participate in conversations, and even make informed decisions! The advantage of doing this is that it keeps the audiences guessing as to whether the onscreen characters are still in the real or the dream world, making the eventual Krueger attacks more unexpected and surprising. This formula makes the movie more fantastical and sci-fi-ish and less relatable to real-life experiences.

This is where ANOES2 gets interesting, as it veers away from the formula even before the formula became formulaic. After the tragic events in the first movie, a new family moves into the Thompsons house, unaware of said happenings. Inevitably, the ghost of Freddy Krueger haunts the sole teenager in the house, this time a reclusive, geeky boy. Probably because the whole nightmare killing thing didn't work out too well the last time, Krueger tries something new, by possessing the kid's body and embark on his killings in the real world. Strangely, his logic-twisting powers in the dream world also applies in the real one. This is more ridiculous than the "alternate world" concept. Trying something new is a good thing because we don't always want to see the same old thing and Hollywood is currently notorious for being creatively bankrupt, but then again in cases like ANOES2, new doesn't necessarily mean it will work for the better.

Many movie critics pointed out the quite-apparent homosexual vibe in the movie, because A: the protagonist is frequently topless and sweaty, B: there's actually a gay bar scene and one S&M-like sequence in the locker room shower involving two men, C: one jock character even made a sober remark that the protagonist would rather "sleep with him", and D: the director claimed that he deliberately made the movie that way. True, they're there in the movie, but they don't deter the movie the way another vibe, the "B-grade vibe" does. Although very tight on budget, the first ANOES felt like a slick, big studio production, with a talented crew and director who were able to stretch every penny with just a little bit of creativity and elbow grease. ANOES2 had more budget, but perhaps with a different director and crew, the producers were unable to replicate the X-factor of the original movie. ANOES2 feels more like a direct-to-video cheapo a la Leprechaun 4: In Space.

The pinnacle of cinematic achievement

With the shift of focus on the real world, ANOES2 loses the novelty that the first movie possessed. The real world of ANOES2 isn't even an interesting place to begin with, having to follow around a mundane lead character that has no apparent appeal or any matter of interest except that he's being psychologically tormented by a supernatural entity. Therefore, I have to agree with the general consensus out there that this may easily be the weakest and dullest ANOES movie, having not yet seen anything else beyond Part 4 except for New Nightmare and Freddy Vs. Jason.

Next: A Nightmare On Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors

Related links:
Review: A Nightmare On Elm Street (1984)
The stuff of Nightmares 

Check this out! - Splice

Official Web Site

WORLD CUP + ADIDAS + STAR WARS

Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Horror is a strange genre. Movies are supposed to entertain, excite, thrill, tickle your funny bone and even move or inspire you, if done right. Generally, they should affect you in a positive way. Horror movies, on the other hand, strive to affect you negatively, by shocking, provoking and/or frightening. Sometimes, you can admire the craft and thought put into the work, especially with The Exorcist, The Blair Witch Project, The Sixth Sense, etc. On a personal note, despite my respect for the genre, horror isn't my most favourite of genres, and I don't normally rush out to see the next big scare.

This may sound lame, but to me the most frightening movies are those with evil spirits resembling long haired women in white, which are probably the horror villains with the least amount of costume and makeup budget ever. (See The Ring, Ju-On, The Eye, A Tale of Two Sisters, etc.) They are frightening to me in a way clowns or lifelike dolls are frightening to some people.

That said, most Western horrors aren't very scary to me. Shocking, repulsive, maybe. But the scares rarely made me want to cower behind my blanket like the Asian varieties sometimes do. Vampires, zombies, werewolves, the Frankenstein monster, Michael Myers, Jason Voorhees, Leatherface and Freddy Krueger... they're more supervillains in a movie than something fearful on a subconscious level. They don't crawl under your skin like a good old apparation or just plain weird shit happenings could do. For example, a man standing and facing the corner of a decrepit room for no reason (The Blair Witch Project) does a lot more than the sight of a raised kitchen knife.

Yet, I still enjoyed movies like A Nightmare On Elm Street, although for the wrong reasons. Freddy Krueger, a very iconic horror staple recognisable through his trademark fedora, red and black striped sweater, Wolverine-like blades and charred face, is a memorable baddie more in the lines of The Dark Knight's Joker than a malevolent supernatural force like in the other movies I mentioned. With villains like The Joker, Hans Gruber, and Hannibal Lecter, you find yourself rooting for them despite their nefarious nature. I doubt anyone was in anyway concerned about Dr. Chilton at the end of Silence of the Lambs, and probably wished Lecter got to "have him for dinner" sooner!

Unlike other horror villains, Krueger dispatches his victims in their dreams (or nightmares) where logic and the laws of physics don't apply, which allows for creativity beyond the usual hack-and-slash-with-the-common-garden-utensil death sequences. One infamous scene depicts a teen being swallowed by his own bed, only to be regurgitated as a geyser of blood. This makes Krueger's nightmare attacks a constant highlight in every impending sequel. The Nightmare On Elm Street series becomes more of a morbidly humourous special effects showcase than a true fright fest.

"A Nightmare On Elm Street" is the kind of "must-watch" movie for the movie and horror buffs, simply because the popularity and iconic stature of the series cannot be ignored. I find the movie above-average, with some nice subversion of cliches (a trademark of director Wes Craven) marred by bad acting performances. I also didn't find it frightening for one second, but that doesn't mean you should show this one to your mum or kids either.

Also stars Johnny Depp and John Saxon.

Next: A Nightmare On Elm Street Part 2 - Freddy's Revenge

Related links:
The stuff of Nightmares

The stuff of Nightmares

I used to be the type who goes for the O.G., the original stuff. The days of breaking the bank for collector's editions and McFarlane movie-theme figurines are over. There's no bargain I could refuse. Thus begin my mild obsession with 4-in-1 DVD packs!

Two-in-ones, three, four, sometimes fifty-in-ones (ah, MP4s) are quite the norms in pirated wares, but the legitimate faction is also into the bargain pack game, although almost usually with older, evergreen titles. The great thing in going legit here is the quality: pirated bundle-packs usually cram several movies onto a single disc. Depending on the movie lengths, an 8.5 Gb double-layer disc (affectionately called by the pirates as "DVD-9s") is quite a tight fit even for just two movies. Video quality is sacrificed in the process.

Get an original many-in-ones though, and you'll not find such compromise. Using dual-side DVDs (equivalent to taking two DVDs and glueing them together on the label side), each movie in a way occupies its own entire disc space, no different than when the movies were produced and sold individually. The Nightmare on Elm Street 4-in-1 DVD pack has Parts I and II printed on the first disc. You watch one movie on one side, then flip it over to see the other. I don't know how the company is able to save cost and lower the prices significantly by using this format, since they would still have to burn the same amount of sides if the movies were produced and sold individually. Physically compacting 4 movies into 2 discs also helps a little in maximising shelf space.

One of the disadvantages of dual-side DVDs is that its "sensitive" regions are exposed on both sides, which encourages easy smudges and all other manner of scratches, the hassle is worth the price tag. Another problem is that one of the mainstays sacrificed in the name of bargain hunters is the second-disc special features. Unless the movie is truly one of your favourites, special features can be quite a chore to sift through. There aren't many titles (with more than two sequels) given the economy pack treatment, probably due to their everlasting appeal (e.g. the pricey Aliens Quadrilogy box set, Harry Potter, Die Hard, James Bond, etc.) So far, I've only found A Nightmare on Elm Street (pictured above), Lethal Weapon, Ocean's Eleven, Batman, Rush Hour, etc. There are some eco-packs that are a mixture of unrelated titles, but these are usually two-packers than four.

In conclusion, original 4-in-1 DVD sets are great value for money and takes no more shelf space than a standard DVD box does. Titles available on these four-packers aren't wide, though, and special feature discs that accompany the main feature on the individual DVDs are usually left out of the set. The highly exposed discs get easily damaged too, if you have butter fingers.

Next up: A Nightmare on Elm Street - The Review!

Review: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time

When I think of an action adventure movie set in the beautiful, golden desert of a Middle Eastern land, I expect picturesque cinematography, exotic locales and people, and brave, noble warriors who greet each other by tapping their lips and forehead before finishing with a hand wave, like Ardeth Bay in The Mummy. In this world, things are either said to be blessed, while others are cursed. People smile alot. Warriors are proud, hold their honour in high esteem, and are penitent towards God/Allah. They wield curved sabres, and the sword fights are intricately choreographed, often along stairwells or at the topmost edge of a castle wall. The beautiful heroine is usually feisty, while the hero smiles in amusement. Yeah, these stuff are cheesy as hell, but that's also why it is so fun.

Sadly, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time achieves only a few of these things. Picturesque cinematography was replaced by CGI landscapes. There were a few nice shots of sand dunes, but they were really tight shots, so you don't really see the full expanse of the desert. This is also one of the movies where the British accent doesn't work, especially with Prince Dastan's Cockney-like English. Nobody does the Middle Eastern hand-wave greet thing. And the "heroes" all started off doing something that is far from noble or honorable, trick or no trick. They behaved more like barbaric Vikings than proud Persians.

Another weak part is the use of the Dagger of Time. The use and limitations of this device are sketchy. No doubt, it is a magical artifact that can reverse time, but how far back does it turn the clock? Does it depend on how long the button is being pressed? Why is there a modern-day red button on the hilt of a medieval dagger in the first place? How much magic sand do you need for say, a 30-second jump back in time? How do you even measure the amount of sand per second of time travelling? Why does Princess Tamira wears a vial of magic sand around her neck even though the use of the Dagger is forbidden, apart from giving the hero (and hetero male audiences) an opportunity to check out her cleavage? None of these questions were answered in the movie.

The worst offender is the action, which is close to terrible. I heard some people calling the movie "Prince of Parkour", but associating the art of freerunning to this movie is an insult to the discipline. The action was filmed and edited in such a disjointed way that makes it very difficult to appreciate the parkour and swordfights on display. (For a good example of parkour action, see the Daniel Craig James Bond movie, Casino Royale.) Perhaps there never was much choreography in the first place, and the rapid edits serve to hide this shortcoming.

Still, I can't fully diss-miss this movie, as it does try its best to charm its way through humour, camaraderie among the cast, and some unexpected dramatic turns. Average at best.

Street Fighter Short Movie

Created by this guy:

"Desh" (Joey Ansah) from The Bourne Ultimatum.

A layman's lesson in anamorphic transfers: Red Cliff DVDs

Just wanted to share my experience renting the DVDs to John Woo's excellent Red Cliff bilogy. It is also a good opportunity to make known the importance of anamorphic DVDs.

Back to Red Cliff: The movies are not really sequels, but two parts of an entire storyline. The movies were shown separately in the cinemas, and were also released in two separate DVDs.

Red Cliff was a big hit in Asia, so it was a surprised to discover how poorly conceived one of the DVDs were.

The subject in scrutiny is DVD Part I, which was not an anamorphic transfer, meaning that the the video was recorded as a 4:3 fullscreen video (a near perfect square, like what you see on free TV). This isn't an issue if the video was cropped to fit a fullscreen TV, but they used the widescreen format (a rectangle, like in the cinemas) and "squeezed" it into fullscreen. This means that on a classic, square TV, you will see the two black bars on the top and bottom of the screen instead of a video that fills the entire screen. Not much problem there. But on a widescreen TV, the picture looks overstretched width-wise. Worse, the black bars eats up screen and data space, reducing the picture quality of the actual video presentation. If you are not familiar with anamorphic transfers, there's a bit of a technical explanation to it, but essentially it's a recording technique that efficiently retains video quality of movies shot in widescreen format on DVDs. Most good original DVDs would indicate whether it's an anamorphic transfer at the back of their covers. Red Cliff Part I DVD is not anamorphic, thus the video quality is glaringly low on a hi-definition LCD.

Red Cliff Part 2 DVD is anamorphic, though, and the picture fits my LCD correctly. Picture quality is a lot better than Part I DVD, but then I noticed that the video seemed to have fine, horizontal "black stripes". I was about to blame the DVD again, until I read this article about video interlacing and progressive scan. Nevertheless, the video quality is still not to my satisfaction when compared to other original DVDs I owned.

Bottom line: Don't buy Red Cliff Part I DVD (unless they release an anamorphic version), but Part II is ok, though you may see some interlacing issues if your player or TV isn't "progressive". Chim... The Red Cliff Blu-Rays are a better bet, but no comments on those until I finally get them.

All the Red Cliff discs in Singapore are currently distributed by Scorpio East.

Review: Kick-Ass

Fight like a little girl

Kick-Ass is a parody of superhero movies, particularly Spider-man. But unlike other spoofs, Kick-Ass is a notch better than the rest of its ilk, with cleverer jokes and no cartoon-illogic, anvil-dropping nonsenses, if I remembered correctly. Without a PG-rating restrain, the movie gets to spice things up with some gratuitous violence and darkly, morbid humour. Still, the movie was a few steps short of greatness because of the way it unevenly handles two different storylines that don't seem to gel all that well together.

The two main reasons to watch Kick-Ass are Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) and Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage). They are the most compelling characters in the movie, and a strange mix of realism and exaggeration of some of your favourite comic book heroes. They are a bizarre and unhealthy father-and-daughter vigilante team where one of their crimefighting training involves the dad shooting his ten-year-old daughter in the chest with a gun. They do the most ass-kicking in the movie, especially the ten-year-old. Imagine O-Ren Ishii from Kill Bill during her prepubescent years.

Less interesting is the titular character, Kick-Ass (Aaron Johnson). Although he is the more realistic character, his storyline takes a too-obvious jab at Spider-man, from the Tobey Maguire-like voiceovers to the rooftop-jumping trials. Such smugness somehow doesn't really fit the realistic tone the movie was obviously aiming for. His story shows how completely stupid it is for a completely average guy to try and become a costumed hero. For a character named Kick-Ass, Kick-Ass spends more time getting his ass kicked than kicking asses.

As I said before, the two really doesn't mix when one is more fantastical while the other plays it real. Maybe it would have worked better if it is a story about an average dude who tries to be a superhero in a superhero world and not the real world. Or if the director or writer just removed some of the snide remarks about superhero cliches, which doesn't help when the movie actually plays to the cliches later on. Another idea is to relegate Kick-Ass' character to a supporting role and reduce his screen time. I had the same indifferent feeling when I was watching Watchmen, which later warmed me over on Blu-Ray. Perhaps I will like Kick-Ass more after a few home viewings. Right now, it's just a high Average for me.


Some cool taglines from the movie:
With no power comes no responsibility.
I can't fly/read your mind/be invisible/see through walls. But I can kick your ass.
Whenever Hit Girl swears.

Review: Clash of the Titans

The 2010 remake of the thirtysomething's childhood favourite tries to be grittier and Gladiator, but succeeds only marginally. Clearly wanting to separate itself from the original's childish leanings, the remake blatantly snubs Bubo the mechanical owl in its strive towards seriousness and "realism" (if that's even possible for a fantasy fest like this one.)

Still, the remake's story is actually weaker than the original. At least the motivations of the hero and other characters in the original were straightforward: kill the good/bad guy, get the girl, win the day. When you have a hero that just wants to kill the bad guy for revenge, doesn't give two poops about the girl, and couldn't care less about winning the day, it makes you wonder why he even bothers with the Kraken deadline. I'm sure if he taunts Hades long enough, the evil god would eventually show up for the hero to kick his ass. I mean, it worked pretty well for those Argos soldiers who smashed down Zeus' statue, though they were sorely lacking in contingency planning.

The action definitely benefits from a CGI facelift. Well, mostly. I enjoyed its version of the Kraken finale, which was able to convey the monster's immense and frightening scale through low-position camera angles, and did the job far better than Kraken 1981. The new Pegasus the winged horse is the most impressive special effect I've ever seen! The movement of its CGI wings are just so seamless and real, and it's impossible to tell where the CGI ends and the real horse begins. If someone tells me that what I saw wasn't even a real horse to begin with, I will take my 3D modelling course certificate and shove it up an orifice. Sadly, Clash of the Titans 2010 failed miserably in the Medusa sequence, which was easily the best scene in the 1981 movie. The original Medusa was a genuine Grade A uncompromising badass movie monster, while 2010 Medusa kept reminding me of The Mummy Returns' (2001) crappy CGI Scorpion King.

I thought Sam Worthington did a pretty good job with a lacking material, though he was much better in Terminator Salvation. Was surprised to see Ralph Fiennes, Danny Huston and Pete Postlethwaite, and Bond alums Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace) and Mads Mikkelsen (Casino Royale). The cast was put to ample use in a men-on-a-mission type of storyline, though it needed a little more humour and feeling of camaraderie.

Overall: Average actioner. The original wins by nostalgia and Medusa.

P.S.: I heard they haphazardly put in the 3-D effects at the last minute (upon hearing word of Avatar's success) and the end result was a murky, headache-inducing mess. Thus, I sensibly did not order the upsize, and opted for the regular.