Still wanted. A watchable fighting video game inspired movie adaptation. At this rate we’re having, I’m going to name JCVD’s awful “Street Fighter” as the best fighting video game inspired movie adaptation. I haven’t seen “Tekken,” though, but I’m guessing that it would be around the same level of this ridiculously loud, and a pain-to-watch film. At least, in JCVD’s “Street Fighter,” the cast gets to pose as befitted their cabinet arcade machine characters counterpart they’re trying to portray. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing from “King of Fighters.” The film tries too hard to take itself seriously, and by doing so, failed utterly, completely, miserably.

Obviously trying to cash-in the arguably most popular character in the King of Fighters game for her (two) obvious reasons, Mai Shiranui, the film opens with Maggie Q, on her way out from the shower. As she blankly stares into the fogged mirror (with apparently nothing but a towel, I must add), she puts an earpiece (a cheap looking bluetooth earpiece by the look of it) and looks like transported to another place where she donned a fighting suit, which sadly nowhere near the semblance of fighting suit she was famous for. Then a fighting ensues. The fighting that was supposedly a part of a tournament called “King of Fighters.” However, if you had had an experience as a button-masher fighter before, by the look of this first fighting scene, you’ll know you’re in for a trouble.

“King of Fighters”’s universe is a huge one. A little more so because unlike most fighting games, you’ll usually get to pick a group of three characters whom somehow related. Story-wise, or blood-wise. Naturally, only a handful of these characters made into this screen and all of them, are almost painful to watch. Heck, even Maggie Q natural awesomeness couldn’t help this film. I was bored almost to a point where I considered to walk out of the theater.

And I thought “The Legend of Chun-Li” was bad.

The film spins a little sci-fi to its story. Now, sci-fi is a nasty beast to tame for a film. Almost universally, you must spent a considerable screen-time to explains the rule of a sci-fi you wish to convey to the audiences. Remember “Inception”? That film spends a lot of time to explain the dream world during Mr.DiCaprio and Ms.Page mind-bending scenes. This film also spends a lot of time to explain the rule of the world that enabled people, you know, transported through another world, euh, dimension by the means of a cheap-looking bluetooth earpiece. Only much much worse, and seemingly much much much much longer. No excitement whatsoever emanates from the film when Iori Yagami explained the nature of the three artifacts to a super hot but looks very super bored Mai Shiranui. At this point, the couple of guys sitting on my immediate left was soundly asleep.

And then there’s Ray Park as the film’s supposedly super-villain. He has a screen presence of an uncredited extras and made Lex Luthor in “Superman IV” thousands time more menacing. And his motivation? Implausible. In short, he was a complete waste of time. I can’t believe that this guy did Darth Maul in “Star Wars Episode I.” I guess time does change a man.

All in all, I think the men behind this film knows full well that they’re dangerously toying with the audiences’ patience and expecting them to be patient is a terribly long shot. You know it’s like expecting a pig could fly *and* shitting gold while it was airborne. Thus, the choice of super hot Maggie Q, and the presence of the lesbian fighters, Vice and Mature. It’s a very very cheap trick and it doesn’t work. If you didn’t shifted in your seat, or playing with your cell, or ever glancing at your watch, or fallen asleep, or simply walk-out of the theater, then I must see you in person because I think you’re a Zombie. Impervious to human’s emotions.

My rating: 0 / **** A sci-fi themed fighting video-game movie adaptation. Bad idea. It spends a terribly long time to explains the “world” and when the ball finally gets rolling, it was a huge disappointment. Stupid, uninteresting, cardboard characters and a laughable super-villain. Even the presence of Maggie Q, and Vice and Mature (don’t care about their respective real names) doesn’t help. If anything, they made the experience even worse.

So you buy a ticket to a film called a “Piranha 3-D.” Its posters, are often suggestive. They usually featured an open mouthed fish with rows upon rows of teeth, portrayed to be sharp enough to shred the fragile thing that is a human body to pieces. Then, you have a woman, scantily clad in a bikini. What’d you expect? Me? I expected nothing but these two elements combined into an enjoyable, no-thinking required exploitation monster film. Characters? Who cares? They’re going to die, anyway. Dialogs? Unless these fishes could talk, better keep it at minimum. Better put an extra effort on anguish screams of terror. Plot? If it’s plausible enough to have these fishes ripped a body apart, I’m sold. Yeah, this film is a definitely an exploitation film and putting it up there with films labeled by many as the best, the masterpiece, the breakthrough, the rules changing achievement might be an insult to many. But hey, I’ve managed to put everything aside and expecting nothing more from an exploitation film could offer and guess what? It doesn’t disappoint. In fact, this film is going to be my fourth entry of the year 2010 films that I’m most definitely going to buy its original DVD/Blu-Ray at the end of the year. Not necessarily the fourth best, but it’s going to be one of the films I’ll want to remember from the year 2010. Years from now, this film is going to be a cult classic. Well, according to me, at the very least.

The film opens in a ‘meh’ note. All the cheesy elements you’ve undoubtedly familiar with, if you’re a fan of a horror genre, are incorporated in the opening scene. Plus, the obvious, if not sloppy CGI work almost put me to a massive disappointment. However, when the opening scene ends and we see the first opening title for the first time, I was all smiles. Alexandre Aja knows full well about what he was offering to his audiences. That he intended to make an intentionally campy monster film, a homage, if you will, to the exploitation genre and he conveys the message, as well as an invitation to the audiences to have fun, simply with his choice of opening title card. Old school, cheesy, campy, and all the best and probably more from the B-movie genre. It promises of fun things yet to come, and the film kept its promises to the very letter, to the very minute.

What surprising from the film, and particularly shown the craftsman of Aja and his team behind the camera, is that the film actually takes care of its characters. As far as a horror slash exploitation films go, they’re pretty solid. Even down to the cast-types such as the unbelievably too handsome but socially-ousted and inherently-good teenage boy who helplessly in love with this sweet and ‘innocent’ girl who merely saw him as a ‘friend’ and instead dating a jock who visibly disliked the inherently-good teenage boy. Now, this is a personal note, but really, we, the inherently ‘good’ guys should be insulted with these kind of cast-types. In real life, well, in my version of a real life, if the girl I’m in love with doesn’t care about me even if someone had thrown a glass of soda in my direction, the girl in question was probably doesn’t worth to be desired. But as I was saying, even down to the cast-types, this film has more hearts than many films whose intentions are similar. To shock and gross. And then there’s Jerry O’Connell. Somebody give him an Oscar, please His last line of dialog will be much remembered

Lake Victoria is apparently a favorite destination among youths to spend their Spring break partying, and probably fornicating, under the Sun and under the water and once in a year, the town where Lake Victoria resides suddenly bursting with activity as thousands of college kids arrived by the horde and get naked or whatever. Shortly before, an earthquake hits the town and somehow, opened the sub-terranean lake below the Lake Victoria and exposing, for the first time in two million years, a throng of Piranha fishes. Naturally these fishes are violent, hungry and the kids, with their jiggling body under the water was nothing more but a breakfast, a lunch, or a dinner buffet to these creatures.

Once the film gets to the near end of its second act, the gore festivities are fired up and they’re quite gross and intense. Well, as far as the mainstream films allowed it to, that is. There are far more grosser films than this one, obviously, but they didn’t see the light of public distribution and only passed around in the hushed tone of secrecy. But this film had enough gross and shock. Body parts are a plenty, mangled meat are everywhere, red paints are used excessively, some ‘executions’ are quite creative, as was expected from Aja, but thankfully, in my opinion, never really ventured much into an over-the-top torture porn category.

The rest of the film is fairly straightforward. The good boy tries to get his girl, the mystery was more or less solved, the fate of its characters are determined, the girls gets their reason to buck naked and to illicit sexy feeling to this film (it worked) and of course, there’s a room for a sequel should the film received well enough to warrant such decision from the producers (it does). I mean, come on, once again, with that kind of premise, a title choice that was purposely wacky and campy, and a cheap-looking movie posters that came with it, what’d you expect? An epic?

My rating: *** / **** The film, quite intentionally, doesn’t take itself very seriously. Nor should you. It was a fun film, aimed to please the fan of shock and gore mainstream monster film. The film knows full well that it tries to accomplishes what B-films are trying to accomplish and as far as the expectation goes, the film worked well. Very well. You don’t like monster exploitation film? Don’t bother to waste your time with this.

The film’s strength is clearly lies on its high concept, mind-bending sci-fi theme, cloaked with embellishing set pieces, and delivered with such adept narrative from among the best story-teller out there, Christopher Nolan. To an attentive viewer, despite its length, this film is ever engaging and should be entertaining and ultimately rewarding to a curious mind. And contrary to popular beliefs, the film is relatively linear and is not hard to follow at all. All it asks was your attention. For 148 minutes. I dare to say this, that if, at the end of the film you’re frustrated because you don’t get its head and tail, then sorry, perhaps you should consider another hobby. Gardening, perhaps?

It is a pleasant departure from what we have as usual blockbusters that merely satisfies the eyes and ears. Thus, I gave this film my first four star rating, and a clear choice for the best film of 2010 so far.

I believe in the notion that the less you know about this film, the better it would be. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb, the leader of the small group, each with their own expertise, in an elaborate heist against Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy), a newly crowned conglomerate mogul. But rather than taking something, the group was sent to put something or with the word from the film, to do an “Inception,” planting an idea into Fischer’s subconscious mind, through dream.

What I liked, no, what I *really* liked from the film is, obviously its narrating. I was so enamored by it that at the end of the film, the element was seemingly overshadowed its heavy weight casts. Though when I stopped to think about it, the actors were in fact so good that they compliment the narration, and accentuates the good that came out of it. Had, say, the role of Cobb portrayed by a lesser actor, I wouldn’t had as enamored as I was of now. My only problem, if I want to do a nitpicking, with the whole casts was Marion Cotillard and this film added one more of her ploy in English speaking role that didn’t quite swept me off of my feet like the one she did as Edith Piaf (though one of her songs was used extensively in this film and that bought a smile to my face). As well as Ken Watanabe who was well, had tried his best to deliver his English lines but without much of a success.

Leonardo DiCaprio, as usual, delivers once again as a wounded leader, traversing between reality and illusion as he did in “Shutter Island.” I needn’t comment on his performance. Been his fan since “Gangs of New York” and any comment I made on his behalf would definitely going to be biased. Joseph-Gordon Levitt acts as his anchor, and I really think that he is one of the promising actor to watch in the future. He could keep up with DiCaprio and has this ultra-cool action sequence during the second act. I am also pleasantly surprised with no-nonsense Tom Hardy in his role.

Now, Ellen Page’s character is one to watch. At least in the term of narrating story concerned. She was the new recruit of the group and through her character, we learn about the nature of the group’s works, rules, and so forth. If I’m allowed to make a suggestion, *do not* leave your seat (and paid a full attention) for any reason during her earlier scenes. Heck, *do not* leave your seat at all during the whole film.

Visual treat wise, this film also has much to offer and pleases casual moviegoers. As an action/adventure film, for me, this film reaches its most exciting scenes during its final second act where action sequences taking places in different level of reality planes. It ties perfectly, shifting between reality planes in a manner where you perched at the edge of the seat to see what Nolan has to offer. The scenes, in my eyes’ view, weren’t heavily laden with CGI effects that tries to convolute the screen with explosions and what not in order to emulate the excitement. The scenes were more subtle and tightly related to the story and serves more as a compliment rather than a main course. Contrary to most recent action blockbuster out there.

All in all, in the year where I think the good films were too few and too far between, “Inception” proves that there are actually talented people out there who chose not to play safe and dare themselves with a challenge. Of course, Nolan has been given some free financial reign due to his previous successes and with that he could make a film on this level which in turns, make us, a bit more happier and more looking forward for our next outing to the theater. So, everybody wins and look what we’ve got here. As far as 2010 concerned, this film is a landmark.

My rating: **** / **** I had a wee-bit problem with Marion Cotillard and still hasn’t found a foreign actor who could tackle an English speaking role flawlessly, but despite all that, with high-calibre names serves to an ambitious idea, in the hand of an adept, one of the best, probably the best itself story-teller in the market, you really expect I would give less than four stars? A little caveat though, the film actually requires the intellect to be enjoyed. But that won’t be a problem, right? Right?

The animation film territory was definitely crowned by Pixar whose works were expected (and so far has been realized) to be stellar with a tendency to aim at the heart of its adult viewers. Occasionally, Dreamworks was able to stole a spotlight or two, but one thing stood clear. Pixar sets the bar for animation film and it was sets pretty high.

“Despicable Me” is the first attempt from Universal Pictures in the animation film territory and naturally, it went the safer route with a light-hearted comedy, simple premise and a subtle emotional stuff. None were too heavy as in Pixar movies, but nobody, this film’s makers included, would expect that it does. But the most important thing was, the film worked. It achieved what it has set to achieve which is to provide a light entertainment, laugh and pretty much an enjoyable and pleasant venture into a theater. I had a great time.

Dr.Gru (voiced by the amazing Steve Carell, though I’d bet you won’t be sure if it was him until the credit rolls) is a self-proclaimed supervillain. His reputation (and his ego) is, however, marred by the arrival of a younger villain, Vector who had accomplishes much more grandeur villain-y things than him. Threatened, he, and his partner along with his numerous minions, employs a plot to reclaim the supervillain top spot by stealing a shrinking ray, built a rocket, and shrink the moon (doesn’t matter the scientific consequences of the sudden void of gravity left by the sudden absence of the moon. This is not a sci-fi film). His plan is, however, once again hindered by Vector when he stole the shrinking ray en-route and stow it away in his impenetrable fortress. In an attempt to reclaim the shrinking ray, Dr.Gru soon learns Vector’s soft spot for girl scout’s cookies and later “adopted” three orphaned girls to gain access into Vector’s fortress. Of course, by this time, you’ll know where the film is headed. The real treat of this film would be the relationship between Dr.Gru and his three “adopted” girls with his conflict with Vector added as an icing in the cake.

Squarely aimed for a light comedy, this film works. Its simple and predictable plot are known and merely a device for many of the film’s strengths in slapstick, sharp dialogs, cutesy animation, and the very important assets of this film, its numerous yellow bean-shaped Minions which stole the scenes every time they were in (my favorite would be the bored looking Minion floating due to an anti-gravity serum effect) and threatened to be dangerously missed every time they weren’t. Thankfully, the voice works and like-able characters (even if he was naturally a supervillain, and the not annoying little girls) could keep us, adults hooked for the rest of the film. Children? Oh, they’re going to be up and down their seats for this film. This is a “family film” that even more “family”-friendly than the previous (and yet, still far more superior) “Toy Story 3.”

My rating: **1/2 / **** A welcome and pleasant summer distraction. This is no Pixar, and the quality of its animation and its light, purely comedy shows just that. The film however made up the gap significantly with its light tone, superb voice works and the many showings of Minions which I loved to watch so much that I’m afraid this review is slightly biased.

Actually, to call this film a ‘remake’ or a ‘reboot’ of the original “Predator” released 23 years prior is semantically wrong. However, it does feel like it was a reboot and given the unfavorable percentage of failed remakes, reboots, prequels, or whatever, I was naturally exasperated when the project was announced. This film, however, is a proper sequel and for me, as I re-watched the original “Predator” immediately after this film, there is a noticeable lesser suspense from it than its original and I just can’t stop myself from staring at Mr.Brody’s beak-like nose up to a point where it became a nuisance. But that’s just me.

In summary, I enjoyed the first act but significantly less so afterwards.

“Predators” opens quite nicely, actually. It sets the mood of an unknown peril and promises a pleasant and gripping adventures ahead. We see Mr.Brody suddenly awaken as he was free falling. He then frantically tries to open his parachute. It opens narrowly as he crashes into the foliage and the ground below. Title appears, and at this point I was just slightly amused with Mr.Brody’s nose. Soon after he crash landed, Mr.Brody quickly acquainted with the rest of the ‘crew.’ A russian soldier equipped with a gatling gun, an Israeli woman equipped with a sniper rifle, a Mexican gangster, a Japanese yakuza, and others. There are in total eight strangers thrown away together in almost the same manner as the other, oblivious to what, where or why they were suddenly air-dropped into a forest unlike they’ve seen before (1). But of course, you who claimed to have a hobby watching films wouldn’t have to guess.

When it was announced that Robert Rodriguez produced this film, I was immediately giving the project the benefit of doubts. Sure, his works were for me, polarizing but at least he had worked on films he _really_ cared about. That, in itself, is a commendable quality and at the very least, the end results wouldn’t be insulting. And then, Nimród Antal sets to direct with Laurence Fishburne, Topher Grace, Alice Braga, Adrian Brody, and heck, Danny Trejo boarded the wagon. On paper, this alone looks very promising as Mr.Antal’s previous works has been in some way or the other brimming with potentials.

For me, the problem with “Predators” was as if I had watched two separate films. The first act, where the misfits ‘crew’ get acquainted with one another, trying to know each other and at the same time, recognizing their surrounding in order to probe to what they were dealing with, shows what Antal could do to invoke its audiences’ curiosity. He timed his shots deliberately, slowly but not too long, as he reveals the ’secrets’ of the ‘game’ in which the ‘crew’ was a significant part of. In fact, for me, the _best_ action sequence of the film came from this act and it has nothing to do with the nemesis.

The second act is when the ‘crew’ finally gets face to face with the nemesis. Though it still manages to provide a gripping sensation and a commendable trigger-happy sequence that was eerily looked like the one in the original “Predator,” it does seems to me that at this point, Antal was slightly confused on whence he’s going to take this film. On one hand, he tries to piqued our curiosity by concealed the nemesis for as long as possible but on the other, he knows that we’ve already known what the nemesis looked like and therefore concealing it for a bit longer would only made us grow more impatient. Well, at least, I was impatient. Thus, when he decides to reveal the nemesis, the end result was, for me, underwhelming. At this point, I was started to get disturbed by Mr.Brody’s nose.

The third act was even more fell apart that even Mr.Fishburne’s manic performance wasn’t able to coax the dreaded feeling that I’ve been brooded since the second act. I wouldn’t say much, but the third act, specifically the one-on-one final battle in the original “Predator” was _far_ more thrilling than in this film. And there’s that whole business about the character ‘twist’ (2). And at this point, Mr.Brody’s nose has become a nuisance.

My rating: *1/2 / **** I loved the first act, but the rest of the film doesn’t hold that well. I was particularly disappointed with the character ‘twist’ and the obligatory one-on-one battle at the end of the film. Loved: Mr.Fishburne’s manic performance, and most of first act. Not-So-Much-Loved: Almost entire third act. Hated: The ‘twist.’

(1) There’s actually a curious plot-hole related to this forest thingy. It probably just me, but right from this very moment, I wasn’t as interested to the film as I was before.

(2) It wasn’t really a proper twist, and I don’t feel like it belongs to the overall film. I was highly annoyed when the ‘twist’ was revealed.

Eyes for details. I would easily gave the high mark in that particular aspect regarding this film. It is, after all, something that Ridley Scott is famous for. The level of efforts to bring the 12th century England is commendable. Every chain of a chain mail, every nook of a castle, every feather of an arrow, all was wrought with careful attention. Alas, given such achievement, I would say that the film doesn’t really have much else to offer.

As was the norm in the film industry nowadays, the tale of Robin of Nottingham which was centuries old and has been retold many times through cinema, was rebooted and his origin reimagined in this film. We’re introduced to Robin Longstride (Crowe), an ordinary archer serving under King Richard’s infamous third crusade army. He can’t keep his mouth shut by the way, which if you asked me, at such a tumultuous time as medieval Europe, merely showcased his, for lack of better words, dumbness. One thing led to another, Robin and his sort of and would be merry men, travels to Nottingham, where Robin has to pretend to become some Knight and wedded to Marion Loxley (Blanchett). Meanwhile, in the high place of London, a certain knight, Godfrey (Strong) donned a double mask by disrupting the trust between the land lords and the King and at the same time, preparing the French army to strike at the heart of London amidst the impending Civil war he envisioned with his disruptive design.

In short, it’s a “Batman Begins” up until Bruce Wayne flies back to the Gotham and discussed about fear with his faithful servant, Alfred Pennyworth. In other words, “Robin Hood” is an incomplete tale that even if its runs more than two and a half hours, it felt a bit rushed at the end. Probably because somehow Ridley Scott had thought that we need more of that love story which supposed to be a mere backdrop to the tale during the second act, and the elaborate setup of the D-day reenactment with swords and arrows on the finale which I personally find, did not generate as much excitement as what I believed Mr.Scott’s had hoped to achieve on this setup.

I was largely indifferent with Russel Crowe. I loved his role in “American Gangsters” and I’m still really really hoping that they would continue the “Master and Commander” franchise. His role as Robin in this film is utterly forgettable. So was his supposedly love interest, Cate Blanchett even if I had often named her as one of my favorite actress by a considerable margin with most working actresses out there. During the second act, when the film shifts gear precariously into a romantic comedy genre as Robin and Marion skirted and eventually fall for one another, it was painful to watch. I don’t really see any chemistry between them. I mean, I *don’t* believe that Marion could fall for Robin. At all. In my point of view, Marion Loxley as portrayed by Cate Blanchett is too proud to fall that easily into Robin Longstride as portrayed by Russel Crowe.

That’s two miscasts. Naturally, since these two receives the top billing, there’s no point in mentioning others especially because there’s nothing to remember from the others given their limited screen time.

Further, if Ridley Scoot and Russle Crowe’s previous collaboration, “Gladiator,” had a tragic villain in the form of Joaquin Phoenix in his best role (really, why was everyone cheering for Maximus at the end of that film? They should cheered for Commodus!), this film doesn’t have any such superior quality. Mark Strong is uninteresting and his motivation is negligible at best. I mean, really, it all amounts to this. A formulaic script, a huge miscast on its two top billing, and an uninteresting villain? There’s really nothing to be commended from this film except as I had mentioned above, the details in which the film was made and obviously paid a careful attention to.

My rating: * / **** Fan of Crowe? Fan of a lash out action sequences? This one for you. I was pained as the film wade through its second act and as my wife had attested, the finale battle scene was dull, almost ridiculous, and prompted the film to rush to its conclusion. At best, this is not “Robin Hood.” This is “Robin Hood” part one and here’s hoping there’s no part two in the horizon.

We’ve all come to expect that films based on comic-book weren’t going to be about characters in black and white as it once was. A departure that more or less, or at least, in a way I had wanted it to, started with the “Dark Knight” reboot. However, apparently, we’re about to venture further into an established universe where superheroes are occupying the same time and plane in a planned mash-up where these big names collaborate into one huge gigantic team of superheroes. Of the two prominent universes, Marvel looks the more ready than DC and films such as “Iron Man 2″ was at least responsible to laid the groundwork for the eventual “The Avengers” film in the future.

Started off immediately from where the first film left-off (it should be still fresh in your memory, after all, it wasn’t that long time ago), “Iron Man 2″ introduces us to Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke in a badass role) in Moscow, a brilliant physicist with a history that related to Stark family. He imitated the Iron Man core in his underground lab with poster on Iron Man/Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) to let us, the clueless knows his intention on engineering the device. Meanwhile in the U.S. Stark was on a high note although apparently on the surface. Quickly, we introduced with slew of characters that made up the prominence of the film. Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell who is ah-some), Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), James Rupert Rhodes (Don Cheadle) and Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson in a bored stance). Events piled up, and more importantly, groundwork for the eventual “The Avengers” is being set-up with the introduction of agents from S.H.I.E.L.D, and eventually, it concludes with a high note where these characters concludes their respective conflicts.

“Iron Man 2″ tries to do many things at once. Resolving conflicts, laid the groundwork while trying to adhere to the characters established in the source material, and pleases the casual movie-goer going for nothing but a blockbuster that marked the start of the summer season. Mostly, the film didn’t disappoint. I particularly love the way the film wrapped up itself. From the Justin Hammer’s presentation in the Stark expo up to .. well, I’m going to let you see it for yourself. However, once the film finished, I was wondering and finally came to a conclusion that the film was made with that particular ending in mind, and the scenes that led up to it were more of an obligatory as it merely tries to set up the pieces for the grander plan according to Marvel rather than a necessity to drive a plot forward. For example, the scenes where Tony Stark drunk is nothing more but a hint of what yet to come, and kinda doesn’t fit that well in respect to the overall film’s tone. Fortunately, we have a strong horde of actors here, that even a crowded scenes, a so-so directing, and a lack of coherence in the plot won’t fail the film.

And that was the strongest suit from this film. Actors. Robert Downey Jr. is already on a high-roll since he starred in “Iron Man” and he rarely disappoints. Mickey Rourke is also one of those actors who making a come back with a bang. Here, he channels some of the energy from “The Wrestler,” and if you’ve seen the film, you know how badass he is. Heck, for the next couple of days, I’ll dye my hair with strand of silver, tied it up in a bun, chewed a perpetual toothpick and learns to speak Russian. That is how good he is in this film. Sam Rockwell is ah-some. Simple as that. Hollywood need to give him more roles. Even Don Cheadle and Gwyneth Paltrow is passable and able to keep up with Downey Jr. and Sam Jackson as always, is Sam Jackson. You can’t argue with him. You really can’t. My only disappointment lies on Scarlett Johansson. She looks bored and her acrobatic scenes weren’t that exciting anyway. Well, I loved her better when she’s blond, anyway.

For all it’s worth, “Iron Man 2″ is a pleasant watch and a good start for a summer season. It’s like “Transfomers” but with modest amount of mecha fighting, and far-far, up-and-away, better in every account performances.

My rating: *** / **** A jumbled scenes that merely exists for the benefit of the high note ending scene and laying the groundwork for Marvel’s ambitious project, “The Avenger.” Of course, it won’t stop you from seeing it anyway. Awesome horde of actors, though, that you could easily dismissed the film’s shortcomings. In short word, I liked the first film better.

From the beginning, the intention of this film was clear. It tries to give a somewhat satirical parody on many, albeit only a small fraction of social problems that were prevalent in the current Indonesia. Often, familiar monickers on the current happenings were thrown in and only made sense if you’re an Indonesian or had been living within the proximity of news about Indonesian at some length of time recently. Generally, I’m not a fan of this kind of film. They’re usually so full of themselves, and always pushing on their “message.” I had a relatively small threshold on how long I could endure such pretentiousness before finally giving up, by rolling my eyes and sigh out an exasperated sound. In that respect, I’d say that this film is a bit pretentious and some sections in the second act is a pain to sit through. Even so, I liked the way the film chooses to end itself and giving the recent competition from local film-makers, I came to a firm conclusion that if there’s anyone who could save Indonesian cinema, his name is Deddy Mizwar.

Reza Rahadian (I forgot his screen name) is fresh from college, and like most of college graduates, was hard pressed to look for a job. He eventually met with a juvenile pick-pocketer, and later introduced to their whole gang and their boss. He offered the result of his education to help organized the group. At first, he was alone, gaining a resistance and not surprisingly, an acceptance from the gang. He was later asked his friends to join in his cause only to be later, opposed by his dad, a religious figure that firmly disagree with whatever his son was doing.

At first, the real intention of the leading man for me, was unclear. Whether he’s there to help these juveniles to become a better pick-pocketer or to entirely switched to the good side, wasn’t really clear. Not until his friends joined in. I figured that this was because the leading man is less than capable to deliver something convincible. Anyway, my biggest problem wasn’t that. Somewhere in the middle, the film went too far by putting me on a wince inducing scene that went too long. I believe I’m not the only one who would felt this, but I guess that is a risk that you’d get when you employ that many child actors and putting them on a single scene. Not that I’m against child actors, but a decent child actors are terribly rare.

But apart from that, and that the film had often pushed a single keyword that at one point I almost wanted to check on Google to typed the keyword and see if this film came out at top, the film was quite good or terribly good if you compared it to other recent Indonesian film releases. Tio Pakusadewo steals every scene he was in and there are many witty dialogues that carry a bolder statement (and a smile) than the aforementioned keyword which shown what Deddy Mizwar is capable of doing but somewhat sorely missing at most of the length of the film. For the direction, especially during the third act (if one to ignore its convenient coincidence contrivances) was fluid and energetic enough to be enjoyed. Music by Ian Antono (I grow up with Ian Antono so it was a familiar tune for me) also helps to liven up the mood. And finally, the film also chooses to end its story wisely, kudos to whoever wrote the scenario on this film. It was a great way to finish this kind of film.

However, the after taste of that wince inducing scene sometime during the second act that eventually disrupt my level of enjoyment.

My rating: *1/2 / **** A bit low, but mind you, this is an unadjusted rating. I usually had a different rating system when it comes to an Indonesian film (which put this film at around **1/2 or ***) but decided to forego it. If you really love Indonesian film, you should at least give this film a benefit of doubt and see it. Maybe if this film has a healthy sales, more films that was at least this good were to follow suit.

The single keyword for this film was “korupsi” and its derivatives.

Update: it was Musfar Yasin who wrote the scenario.

Normally, I have an unequivocal love toward stories about *post*-apocalypse world even if it’s sometimes implausible and bordering to ridiculous, I’d love it none the less. I simply love the desert, or the grey charred world that mostly, if not always, occupies the frame in a film about one. In that respect, “The Book of Eli” first and second act is satisfiable. However, when the film arrives to the third act, the resolution, it simply fell apart with more implausibilities than I could stomach, coincidences, and all the wrong reasons that simply too annoying to be ignored.

Here’s unnamed (yet) Walker (Denzel Washington) in a middle of a post-apocalypse world where sun shines too bright, and nothing but a charred remains of a civilization. This Walker was on a journey to the West and in his backpack is a Book. He opens it and reads it every night and he allows no one to even touch it. On his about thirty years of journey, he arrives in a town (this is where I was immediately disappointed for there are too many people to my liking) ruled by a certain douche, Carnegie (Gary Oldman) and he wants the Book. Bad. The rest is pretty much easy to figured out. The Walker is on the run with Carnegie hot in his tail. Oh, might as well thrown in a female figure, Solara (Mila Kunis) while he’s at it.

If anything was worth to mention from this film is probably the way the Hughes Brothers took their action sequences. It’s clear, energetic and more importantly, doesn’t rely on quick-cuts and shaky cameras as it was common in most action films nowadays. Action fans will surely going to appreciated it and they’re most definitely going to disagree with me when I came to a final conclusion on this film which is, “kinda boring.”

The film starts strong. Excitable even as it follows the Walker on his first night within our presence. The color, the western-like (of course, western being my favorite genre) environment, and the mood of a solitary figure on a mission against an unforgiving world. It’s really good and then shortly after, we’re introduced to the Walker’s proficiency with hand-to-hand combat on the film’s first action scene. Again, as I mentioned above, if anything was worth to mention from this film is the way the director took their action scenes. But then, as the film progresses, and thrown in more characters (especially Mila Kunis’ character whom of course, too clean and too sexy for such a world to be believed), the mood was changed. It’s eventually boil down to a simple action film with an insignificant hint on the post-apocalypse world.

It’s a shame really. With strong actors (Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman), this film should fared better. But, halfway through the film, the mood changes and for me, it’s not engaging enough that whenever the film switched from its strong point, which is the action scene, I get bored pretty fast.

My rating: ** / ****

PS: Of course, I know the name of the Walker.

With Paul Greengrass at helm and Matt Damon at the front, it is easy to think that this would be another Bourne look-a-like. I’d say it’s rather wrong. It’s rather inferior than the series. Well, at least for me because I had held the Bourne trilogy in a special pedestal as one of my favorite films of all-time. After all, without compelling adversaries and Tony Gilroy, a film literate wouldn’t be so quick to assume that a comparison should even be made. Even so, the comparison is mostly inevitable and this film will suffers the most if such comparison was made.

“Green Zone” is a yet another thriller sets in Baghdad. Chief warrant officer Roy Miller (Matt Damon) is in charge for leading the squad to secure the area suspected as WMD storage area. But, when his third search resulting zip results, he begins to question whether the intel he and his squad risked their life for is a really valid. Soon, he began asking questions. Attracting attentions from Bureaucrat Clark Poundstone (Greg Kinnear), CIA operative Martin Brown (Brendan Gleeson), Wall Street Journal reporter Lawrie Dayne (Amy Ryan).

This film is a fictional film based on (probably) non-fictional facts. It takes place in 2003, during the early U.S. occupation in Baghdad. In real life, the issue of WMD remains speculative as no WMD has yet been found. The film puts this issue forward by having a good solider, Miller questions his orders. Now, as the truth as we know it has been out in the open, we have pretty much figured out how the film is going to wrap itself up. Frankly, for me, to have such realization and to have our attention firmly toward Miller, his cause, and the eventual futility of his actions are a huge turn off that I spent most of the third act impatient. This is unlike, say, “Inglourious Basterds” that even if it’s based on non-fictional facts, it rewrites the history in such manner that was acceptable. “Green Zone” wasn’t like that, its issues, its messages, are meant to be delivered as firmly and as close as it was to its real world counterpart.

The film employs a typical Paul Greengrass out-of-focus and shaky cam. Now, I’ve learnt that not everybody shared as much enthusiasm as I was when faced with this method of picture taking. For instance, I was surprised that many disregarded the film “Cloverfield” merely because the way it takes its pictures. In this film, Greengrass’ style is mostly an asset. It amplifies the sense of urgency and magnifies the chaos of firefights and its action-oriented part. And with the help of John Powell’s score, I was hard pressed to let go the image of Jason Bourne whenever Matt Damon is on screen. This make it easy to liked and trust Miller more albeit the more I’ve got a glimpse of Jason Bourne in Damon the more I’ve grown upset because really, we’re in a different film right now. The film however lacks a competent adversaries that could shine through Damon’s star. It felt like and probably is, a sole vehicle to cash in Matt Damon as an action star. I’ve got no problem with it, mind you, but two, or more prominent performances in a film is always better than one.

All in all, “Green Zone” is a straight-forward thriller with a predictable ending that makes me sad and impatient during the wait that lead up to its final conclusion.

My rating: **1/2 / **** Perhaps I’ve grown tired with films that takes Iraq as its subject. For me, the film suffers because we’ve already know what is going to happen and therefore the events that led up to its final scene wasn’t all that pleasant a journey to wade through. As an action film, however, this film is enjoyable.