Review: "Immortals"

Thanks to omy.sg, I had the opportunity to watch a preview of "Immortals" on Tuesday (it opened in cinemas everywhere on Thursday). We were treated to the 3D version of the movie at Lido.

Right after the movie, my first thought was "ugh". This show was truly a letdown in all of the important aspects - story, characters, acting, ending. Even Henry Cavill, in what was probably his first demonstration of what he will look like in the upcoming "Man of Steel", could not save the picture.

I didn't know anything about this movie before watching it. But I'm a fan of Greek mythology and thought it would be a good change from the usual modern fare. On the other hand, I was wary from "Clash of the Titans", which not only failed as a retelling of Greek mythology, but as a remake of the original classic.

And so I was disappointed by "Immortals" as well. It tells the story of legendary hero, Theseus, who rose from a lowly peasant (with great muscles and abs) to a warrior leader against the mad warrior king, Hyperion, played by Mickey Rourke. Along the way, he gets to bed a virgin oracle, acted by Frieda Pinto, and becomes a spectator to a fight between the Greek gods and their opponents, the Titans.

All of which never really happened in the Greek mythology. Theseus didn't die in the battle, he went on to become king of Greece. There was no such character of Hyperion. The Titans weren't a bunch of nameless grey-skinned jungle warriors. And the Greek gods weren't killed in action.

Putting all of that aside, there was little else to like about the movie too. Henry Cavill showed us what we can expect Superman to look like next year, with his well-defined muscles and clean fighting style. But the character of Theseus was written in a shallow manner, where events seemed to fall neatly into place for him. Mickey Rourke, a fine actor in his own right, was as wasted here as he was in "Iron Man 2". The filmmakers could have replaced him with an animatron that spoke in guttural voices and still achieved the same result. And all that Frieda Pinto had to do was to look innocent with her big round eyes.

And the Greek gods... oh geez! When you have an entire pantheon of gods to use in battle, why settle for just five?? And they were so mild and nonchalant about events that it was difficult to like them. In truth, they and the Titans were merely sideshows to Theseus and Hyperion's conflict. These were not the gods that I grew up reading about.

If there was one thing that saved the movie, it was the special effects. The 3D effect wasn't the in-your-face type, with spears and stones thrown at the audience. Instead, it was used subtly to make foreground characters appear more clearly and life-like. It kind of reminds me of how Walt Disney achieved a similar effect with his cartoons. The other CGI effects were quite good too, including the fight scenes between the Greek gods and the Titans, which reminded me of Zack Snyder's films, "300" and "Watchmen".

But really, you don't pay good money to watch special effects. And that's why I wouldn't advise anyone to watch this movie. If you must watch Henry Cavill, wait for "Man of Steel" or catch him in the Showtime TV series, "The Tudors". If you must watch Frieda Pinto, watch "Slumdog Millionaire". And for Mickey Rourke, stick with "The Wrestler" and "Sin City".

Just forget about this show. "Immortals" is a film that will not be remembered forever.

--

Invitation to launch of Shaw Premiere at Nex

Here's a short review of Shaw Premiere at Nex, the local cinema chain's entrance into the "luxurious movie-going experience" segment. (Disclaimer: I had been invited to this pre-launch event by Omy.)

Firstly, the tickets are already unique. Instead of the regular card stock, Shaw Premiere tickets are printed on silver-foil card stock. Unfortunately, the contrast of the black ink may not be clear enough if you've poor eyesight, but otherwise, it's a very noticeable indication that this is a different experience.

At the second floor, there's a large dining area for Shaw Premiere customers. Here, you can have a casual meal before the movie. Ushers are at your beck and call.

Meal prices are about $10 or more. Snacks, like popcorn, are $5 or more. Drinks are about $4-5. (Prices are based on what I can remember.)

An usher will also lead you to the cinema hall at the rear. I counted about 70 seats in neat pairs. The soft, comfortable, cushiony seats feature leather upholstery and reclining ability. Note: if you're 1.7m or taller, you should curl your legs up before reclining, otherwise your feet could get trapped!

There are also individual woolen blankets, like the type used in airplanes. These turned out to be really useful because the hall is quite cold. I felt very comfortable all bundled up.

Couples might be disappointed by the seats though -- there's a sturdy, non-removable arm rest between the seats. No hanky-panky allowed when under covers!

You can also order food and drinks while watching your movie. Pressing a little button on the table will summon an usher/waiter.

The movie viewing experience itself was quite good. The movie we watched, "Rabbit Hole", wasn't in digital format, so I can't really tell if Shaw Premiere boasts a better film projector and screen. The sound quality was similar to that at regular cinema halls, though then again, "Rabbit Hole" didn't have a lot of explosive sounds, so the sound system wasn't put to the test.

After the movie, instead of being led to some non-descript staircase, you exit back through the dining area. Which is a good way to end a luxurious movie experience at Shaw Cinema at Nex.

(All pictures are from Shaw Cinema, because (1) we weren't allowed to take pictures inside the cinema hall and (2) I don't have a good camera myself.)

--

Review: "TRON: Legacy"

I had the chance to watch "TRON: Legacy" on its opening day here in Singapore. Initially, I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch it, because all I knew about the show was about a guy who gets sucked into a video game (or so I thought).

Thank goodness I did watch it.

Firstly, yes, there's no video game involved. "TRON: Legacy" tells the story of a rebellious young man, Sam Flynn, who is pulled into the digitized world of The Grid and has to fight his way out without giving his enemy, CLU, the chance to break out as well. Along the way, he also has to rescue his father, Kevin Flynn, who has been trapped in The Grid for more than 20 years.

Not having watched the original "TRON", I had no idea of what happened before. Fortunately, the story in "TRON: Legacy" stands on its own. What happened before is filled in ably through flashbacks. Anyway, there's very little connection between this sequel and the original story, aside from the name.

(Incidentally, I watched "TRON" after this and thus have a better understanding of the relationship between the humans (or "user") and their programmatic creations, which appear as avatars in the digitized world. Oh, and I couldn't help laughing at the silliness of the original film.)

Naturally, computer graphics were used extensively in depicting The Grid, including the various action sequences. The Grid came across as a very dark, dystopian world, much darker than what The Matrix movies had. I thought that this went against the nature of Disney movies, which being family-friendly are usually very bright and cheery movies. But the darkness helped to accentuate the nifty lighting effects, whether in the characters' suits or in their lightcycles or even during the fight sequences. Also, the gloomy environment also served to illustrate the corruption of The Grid by CLU.

It was eerie to see Jeff Bridges look so young in the character of CLU. Thanks to the wonders of digital graphics, Bridges' youth was immortalized in CLU. Though CLU did seem plasticky at times, you could still tell that it was Bridges doing all of the acting and not some computer animation. Considering how much screen time CLU had, I really have to hand it to the computer whizzes for a job well done in this area.

The biggest disappointment had nothing to do with the computer graphics or other digital wizardry. Rather, it was in the ending. Tron, the title character, had a chance to redeem himself in the climactic fight. Instead, we had a deux ex machina in Jeff Bridges' Kevin Flynn, who channeled his godly powers to deliver the final crushing blow. In spite of the movie's title, the character of Tron never appeared aside from brief flashbacks. This was even though Tron was described as the ultimate good guy and "uber" digital fighter at the start of the movie. I think I wasn't the only one left the cinema hall scratching my head over Tron's absence.

But that about sums up this movie. It is filled with a lot of glitzy graphics and impressive action scenes, but the story was very flimsy, as if written by an amateur. I'd watch this again just to marvel at the advanced graphics and animation and see just how far the technology has come.

--

Review: "하녀 (The Housemaid)"

Thanks to omy.sg, I had the opportunity to catch a preview of "하녀" (or, in English, "The Housemaid"). This was the first Korean drama movie that I was going to watch, so given what I knew about Korean shows, I expected something that was dragged out and emotional.

I was not let down. The pace was glacial compared to what I'm used to with mainstream Hollwood fare. There was also much less dialogue, though fortunately no intercut scenes of people staring at one another. However, the easy-to-understand plot and moments of humour helped to make the film very watchable, even for one who doesn't normally watch Korean shows. (The last Korean movie I watched is "Sex is Zero", if that means anything about what I know about Korean film.)

The film tells the story of a young and attractive housemaid who sleeps with the man of the house, resulting in dark consequences for her and the family. Apparently, this is a remake of the 1960 movie of the same name. Not having seen the original, I can only judge this modern interpretation of "The Housemaid" on its own.

As the sweet but naive housemaid, Jeon Do-yeon was believable in everything she did, from the way she fawned over the young daughter to her performing of the household chores. I could really feel pity for her when she succumbed to temptation. It's too bad then that the ending was both sudden and a headscratcher. After two hours of playing a traumatized young woman, we were left without seeing her really descend into her madness and subsequent tragic end, and instead "treated" to a 10-minute wrap-up.

On the other hand, I thought that almost all of the characters were plastic. Especially the wife of the family. She was written as very black-and-white. Her mother was supposed to be like an evil witch, but she came across as whiny. And the husband was, I guess, like any Korean man -- manly and detached. The use of money was also too convenient, which resulted in the lack of emotional depth in the story.

The only stand-out actress was Yun Yeo-Jong, who played the senior housemaid. We could see her journey from haughty "elder stateswoman" to a somewhat grandmotherly figure. She was also the one who was responsible for injecting most of the humour into this dark film. Her one nude scene had the amusing effect of making the audience cringe.

One thing that I was confused about had nothing to do with the film itself, but with its rating. For some reason, the Singapore Board of Censorship had slapped it with a R21 rating. However, there was only about five minutes' worth of nudity. The one sex scene was filmed in such close-up that you could only see the waist/butt area of both characters. There was no homosexuality, which in Singapore means an automatic R21 rating. Unless the censors count the scene where two women share a bed as homosexuality, which I regard as two people who have no choice but to share a bed because of their cramped one-room apartment. So I'm curious to know what warranted the R21 rating.

The rating aside, I'd say that this is an enjoyable movie if you're new to Korean films. The plot isn't too convincing, the actors are easy on the eyes, and the cinematography is gorgeous. But be prepared to squirm in your seat as you wonder when the pace will pick up (hint: it doesn't).

Review: "Hush"

As the credits rolled in the darkened hall after the end of this 22-minute short film, I had only one thought running through my mind:

"This was the worst $7 I had ever spent on a film!"

Though I'm a supporter of made-in-Singapore movies, there are some films that are as bad as any B-grade flick from Hollywood or Europe. And "Hush" is one of them (next to almost every Jack Neo movie ever made).

"Hush" is a locally made short film by Jeremiah R. Oh. It starts off with a family sitting down for dinner, but in the short span of time, you gradually realize that each member is keeping his or her own deep, dark secret. Well, all except the middle daughter.

What makes this film so bad is its failure to live up to its promise. It is definitely raunchy. But there's sex that helps to move a film forward, and there's sex that's there to tease the audience. "Hush" fell into the latter.

I walked away thinking that "Hush" was simply an excuse for Mr. Oh to indulge in watching naked Singaporean women perform for him. There was ample nudity to arouse the common man, but I felt that the short film could have done without it and still tell its so-called story.

The plot itself left me -- and the majority of the audience, judging by the talk that I heard around me -- thinking "What the f--k" in a disappointed way. There was, actually, no story. Instead, there were just bits and pieces of ideas flung onto film and hoping that they all stuck and came together to tell... something.

Also, the long silent panning scenes, which for some irritating reason seem to be a hallmark of Singapore movies, meant that precious film time -- and all the more precious for a short film -- was used up for no good reason, thus leaving the audience with a sense of loss and uncertainty.

I would recommend that you save your $7 for some other entertainment. "Hush" is simply not worth a single cent.

Review: "囡囡 (Girl$)"

I don't normally watch Chinese movies, let alone Hong Kong ones, because I always feel that they're too slow or too flashy. So when I saw the trailer for "囡囡" (or, in English, "Girl$"), I decided to give it a shot. Of course, it also helped that the show promised some adult content, a suitable visual respite from the doldrums of the daily regiment.

"囡囡" follows the lives of four ladies who work in the Hong Kong lifestyle of "paid dates", or more commonly known as "escorting" in other parts of the world. These girls literally get paid to go on dates with men, and usually end with the romp in bed. Through the four women's stories, we got to see different aspects / reasons for why they -- and all of the other "paid dates" women -- would work in this line. And it's not just for money alone, but even companionship or boredom.

"囡囡" started off quite refreshingly, showing the women going about their work, or even using animated characters. There were even light-hearted moments, such as when Ronnie, who pays customers instead of the other way around, pays one bloke HK$10 instead of the usual HK$1,000.

But unlike that other more well-known movie about a prostitute, "Pretty Women", "囡囡" also exposed the dangers that these women go through. In the opening scene, we already see an escort being murdered and chopped up. Later, we see a man do things to Lin with golf balls in a condom.

The nudity/sex was, indeed, as graphic as promised, with enough exposed breasts to keep the "dirty old men" glued to their seats. The version shown in Singapore was rated R21, the highest rating possible, and was still supposedly cut by censors. Which makes me wonder just how further lurid this film was. But then, "囡囡" was never about the nudity. As the show progressed through its 90 minutes, there was less and less sex, but I was still captivated by the stories of the four women.

And this was in spite of the show never really jolting me with any climactic moments. Sure, there was the moment when Icy realized she had been filmed secretly, or the above-mentioned golf ball scene. But these were played out calmly and steadily, so that they did not elicit any strong feelings. I think that's a strength of the movie, that you intellectually realize that women engage in "paid dating" with both eyes open, as with any other job, but also appreciate that the dangers that they're exposed to are more severe.

"囡囡" ended without a complete closure. Instead of seeing the four women's story threads tied up nicely, as one would expect from Hollywood films, we are presented with even more question marks. One has to live with HIV/AIDS, another looks like she's about to sell her virginity, and so on. In fact, the movie ends with the four women walking in opposite directions, metaphorically showing that though they share the similar line of work, they are still driven by individual choices and experiences.

Even if there were no nudie bits, "囡囡" would still be a satisfactory introduction to the underworld of "paid dates", including its reliance on modern Internet technology like forums and instant messaging. And the movie would also make you want to know more about the motivations and lifestyle of those who live the escort life.

Review: "The A-Team"

Two weeks ago, a movie about a crack military team was released in Singapore. Still screening at some cinemas, it survived the openings of "Toy Story 3" and "Karate Kid". If you want to see it, and the cinema operators still haven't pulled it from their schedules, then maybe you can watch... "The A-Team"!

Hahaha, okay. That was lame. And if you didn't catch the reference, it's a paraphrasing of the familiar opening monologue to "The A-Team" TV series from the 1980s.

The 2010 remake, starring Liam Neeson and Bradley Cooper, successfully re-captured the spirit and tone of the TV show. The opening 20 minutes showed how the team was brought together, but for the rest of this two-hour flick, you could believe that the four Rangers had been working together for eons.

Anyone going in expecting a story would be sorely disappointed. "The A-Team" is all about adrenaline and action. It is about impractical plans and loud explosions. It is about pulling that last ditch attempt out of the impossible and making it seem like it's all in a day's work.

Even characterizations are stretched thin, but that's all right. The easygoing banter between Faceman, Murdock and B.A. makes for an enjoyable buddy-buddy-buddy film. It is to the actors' credit that they managed to pull this off without looking like acting work. It kind of reminded me of the relationship between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in the "Lethal Weapon" movies, where it seemed like these long-time friends just happened to be working together in the same movie.

Die-hard fans may be disappointed with some aspects of the movie though. Like Hannibal's indecisiveness and B.A.'s embrace of non-violence. Or *spoiler* the destruction of the black General Motors van in the opening scene. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the relationship between the characters was spot-on and a hoot to watch. Especially the back-and-forth between Murdock and B.A., those sent the audience laughing in stitches.

*spoiler alert!*
Personally, I was disappointed that the final act's grand plan was concocted by Faceman, not Hannibal. It made me have a lower impression of the ever-decisive and scheming leader that was Hannibal. On the other hand, I appreciated that perhaps it was time to "pass the baton" to his second-in-command, Faceman. I'd like to see how that plays out in the sequel, if there's one.
*end spoiler alert*

If the filmmakers' plan was to make a movie that was a fun escape from the humdrum of reality, then, well, I love it when a plan comes together.

--