Elysium: Over-simplistic plot bombarded with too much wham-bam action and not enough thought

"I don't know if I should go watch Mortal Instruments: City of Bones," I complained to my sometime movie companion on Facebook. "It's only rated 13% on Rotten Tomatoes. But I've read the books and I want to watch it on the big screen," I moaned plaintively. "Go see Elysium," my friend suggested. "It's pretty cool." "Maybe I should watch that instead," I vacillated, and my friend immediately urged: "Yes! Go. Go." So on Saturday afternoon I stood in front of the box office, trying to decide which movie to watch. I finally chose Elysium because I figured the Mortal Instrument screening would be packed seeing as it was opening weekend for the latter whereas I should be able to get great seats for Elysium running in its 3rd or 4th week.

Boy was I to regret it. Elysium is not a bad movie per say, but coming from the director of the sleeper hit District 9 director Neill Blomkamp, I expected something better, and I was disappointed with the results.

The story goes; in the not-too-distant future, Earth has become ravaged and overpopulated. The wealthy elite have migrated to a luxurious space station called Elysium where they own houses with huge lawns and are served by robotic servants, while the rest of the human population are stuck trying to eke a meager living on Earth policed by ruthless robots. Our main character Max De Costa starts out as an orphaned boy who dreams of making it to Elysium one day. As an adult played by Matt Damon, he is an ex-thief and current parolee who works at an assembly that manufactures robots. A work accident leaves him with only 5 days to live, and De Costa is determined to make it to Elysium before then so he can cure himself on one of the Med-Bays that are present in every home in Elysium. Throw in a childhood sweetheart who has a young daughter dying of leukemia and you can pretty much figure out how the plot is going to go.

So there I am in the movie theater, mostly bored as I watch the movie unfold with utter predictability, ironically enough with the plot pushed along by the antics of a crazily unpredictably maniacal villain with no real motivation to speak of.

Matt Damon is decent in the main role, although after he has a powerful exoskeleton fitted into him to help him fight off the robots his character then begins to function almost mechanically and one finds it hard to connect with him. Jodi Foster is terrible as a very one-note villain who is even more robotic than her robotic servants, while Sharlto Copley is baffling as a completely unhinged psychopath.

Most of all though, my disappointment is with director Neill Blomkamp. I was expecting a science fiction movie that was thoughtful and thought-provoking in the vein of his 2009 movie District 9. Instead what we get is a very straightforward action film with twin threads of healthcare and immigration political commentary woven into the story, albeit too simplistically and often relegated to the background by too many empty explosions and action-packed fight scenes, especially in the second half of the movie.

Elysium is not a bad movie by a long shot, but it is not a very good movie either, and more's the pity, because it could have been so much more, and it unfortunately isn't.

2 and a half stars out of 5 stars for me.

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones: Derivative fantasy flick which is nevertheless superior to anything the Twilight saga has to offer

Pacific Rim Review: Awesome Fighting Scenes But Alas, No Plot To Speak Of

Trying to review Pacific Rim is like trying to review two totally disparate movies mashed into one- the incredible fighting scenes between Kaiju and Jaeger (sea monsters and the robots built to do battle with them), and the abysmal interplay of human drama in between these awesome fight scenes.

True, one does not go to a movie like Pacific Rim expecting Shakespeare, but I still expected a somewhat decent and coherent storyline to tie the whole movie together. Alas, that was not to be. The dialogue between the human characters are simply terrible and cringe-inducing. At first I was disappointed with director Guillermo del Toro, who I assumed was the sole screenplay writer, until I realized that he actually shared writing credits with Travis Beacham, who also wrote the screenplay for the devastatingly bad remake Clash of the Titans. So I guess I shouldn't have been too surprised at just how godawful the script was.

The character motivations of the various characters in the movie are just as laughably bad, weak and cliche-ridden. The main character Raleigh Becket (played by Charlie Hunnam of Sons of Anarchy fame) is a Jaegar pilot haunted by memories of his brother being killed while they were piloting a Jaegar together. Mako Mori (played by Rinko Kikuchi of Babel fame), who plays Becket's new co-pilot, is here unfortunately reduced to a disappointingly insipid female lead. I was so excited when I heard that one of the main characters piloting a Jaegar would be a female character. Imagine my disappointment when Mako, upon meeting Becket, is reduced to a mass of quivering fangirl; she takes to spying on Becket through her room's door peephole, blushes furiously, stutters in his presence and make gooey moon eyes at him. Becket, who spent the last five years after his brother's death working in construction amongst other dirty and sweaty men, is probably very flattered by such adoration from such a lovely female specimen, which may explain why he is so quick to reciprocate this crush. And so what we get is basically the instalove formula that is the stuff in so many badly written teenage books like the vampiric Twilight series.

The other pair of Jaegar pilots who share the screentime with Becket and Mori are an Australian father-son pair with superficial parent-child issues haphazardly thrown in to give the characters some so-called "depth", while the Chinese triplets and the Russian husband-and-wife team who pilot the other two remaining Jaegers are unsurprisingly given short shrift here.

You would think that such a movie would not be worth watching at all. Oh, but the fight scenes, the glorious, glorious fight scenes. The wonderfully and gorgeously choreographed fight scenes. Such beauty amongst such an epic scale of carnage and utterly delightful mayhem. Bigger, louder and better than anything a certain director can conjure up in his Transformers series; eat your heart out, Michael Bay. It is almost worth suffering through the completely banal human scenes to watch these huge monsters and robots have a go at each other with entire metropolitan cities as their playground. Stunning, just simply gobsmacking stunning, so very very cool and so fun to watch; The kid in me who used to build robots out of Lego sets is happily delighted.

So, my verdict? One star for the human scenes. Five stars for the fight scenes. That makes the movie, on average, a 3 out of 5 star movie for me. My recommendation: go watch it for the breathtaking fight scenes; just don't expect much of anything in the way of a decent plot.

Despicable Me 2: Underwhelmingly Disappointing, Bland and Predictable Sequel

I wanted to like this film. I really did. I loved Despicable Me and when news came in that Despicable Me 2 was trouncing The Lone Ranger so badly in box office receiptss, I wanted to know what all the fuss was all abou and knew I had to see go it.

The results, were, sad to say, totally underwhelming. The plot was utterly predictable and very bland. Everything felt very cobbled together. The Rotten Tomatoes consensus reads: It may not be as inspired as its predecessor, but Despicable Me 2 offers plenty of eye-popping visual inventiveness and a number of big laughs."

At one point halfway through the movie, I realized that I could have actually taken off my 3D glasses and watch the movie without missing much of anything; the best 3D effects in the movie were too little and too late, seen only when the credits began rolling. I had a few chuckles throughout the movie, but they were few and far between. Definitely no big laughs.

Certainly if you enjoyed Despicable Me, you should check out Despicable Me 2, if only to find out what more about what happens to Gru and his new family and to enjoy the silly antics of his yellow Minions. But I'd say save your money, skip watching the movie in the movie theater and just rent it when it comes out in DVD.

2 and a half stars out of 5 stars for me.

Orlando Bloom as Legolas bids goodbye to Middle Earth by singing along to a parody song

The Lone Ranger Review: Basically a Pirates of the Caribbean movie set in the Wild West

I have to admit, I wasn't all that impressed with The Lone Ranger when I first saw the trailer. I also wasn't sure if there was going to be sufficient on-screen chemistry between Johnny Depp who plays Tonto, and Armie Hammer, who plays the titular character, to help propel the narrative along.

But then, being a huge fan of the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy, though alas not the tepid 4th Pirates flick On Stranger Tides, I was nevertheless still intrigued by the movie. After all, the major players from the Pirates trilogy are teaming up once again to make what Disney hopes will become another huge moneymaking franchise à la Pirates of the Caribbean. Director Gore Verbinski, check. Actor Johnny Depp, check. Writers Ted Elliot and Terry Rossio, check. Music scorer Hans Zimmer, check. I was really interested to see what was going to come out of their latest collaboration.

Armed with free tickets to see a preview in San Francisco, we couldn't get into Monday's screening but managed to nab great seats for the Wednesday screening. The narrative begins in San Francisco, 1933 (which, when the wording appeared, was punctuated with whoops and cheers from the San Francisco audience) where a young peanut-munching boy dressed up as The Lone Ranger meets an elderly Tonto who is displayed as the noble savage in a carnival exhibit. It is through this narrative device, an old Tonto recounting to the boy how the Lone Ranger came to be, that the story is framed, which unfortunately gets tired pretty quickly when the narrative is constantly being interrupted by the young boy contradicting some detail of Tonto's story.

Despite the rather lengthy screening time of 149 minutes, I was never once bored throughout the movie and had a rollicking good time. The movie was funny, violent and silly. At times my movie companion would hunch forward in her seat and cradle her head in her hands because she just simply couldn't believe how silly some of the stunts were, but the movie is silly in a good way. As in "so silly you can't believe this is happening but you are still enjoying it and going along for the ride silly". Not "please God when will this horrible shtick end" kind of silly.

For both better and for worse, throughout the entire movie I was almost consistently reminded of Pirates of the Caribbean. There is more than a hint of maverick Jack Sparrow in Depp's Tonto, and Armie Hammer's John Reid and Ruth Wilson's Rebecca Reid basically take the place of Orlando Bloom's Will Turner and Kiera Knightley's Elizabeth Swann as the requisite romantic couple. Instead of a scene-stealing monkey or parrot, here we have a scene-stealing white stallion. And when a minor villain who serves as a comic relief character cross dresses with bonnet and parasol, you'll go, "Hang on, don't we have a character just like that in Pirates of the Caribbean?" and you'll be absolutely right. Even the elaborate stunts in The Lone Ranger has the energy and vibe reminiscent of the stunts in Pirates of the Caribbean. And if it seems like I am punctuating every sentence with the phrase "Pirates of the Caribbean", it is because I was constantly reminded of it when I was watching The Lone Ranger. Does that make The Lone Ranger a bad or good movie? Well, that depends on whether you like the Pirates of the Caribbean triogy, and whether you actually care to see its antics reprised in the Texan desert instead of on the high seas.

3 and a half stars out of five stars for me. 4 out of 5 stars for my movie companion.

Superbly crafted and acted zombie flick

I am not a zombie fan, and the many production woes plaguing World War Z didn't exactly further entice me to see the movie. I'll have to admit upfront that my sole interest in seeing the movie was the glorious Brad Pitt. Even so, I was planning to wait for the DVD to come out to watch it, but events were to decide otherwise.

My movie companion and I were in San Francisco last Monday trying to catch an early preview of The Lone Ranger but couldn't get in, so we had to pick a different movie to watch. I wanted to watch World War Z, but my friend was squeamish and so we eventually decided to go see different movies, her off to the kid-friendly Monsters University while I went to see World War Z.

The movie is very much like Steven Soderbergh's 2011 medical thriller disaster film Contagion, though in the case of World War Z, the virus is spread by zombies, and rather than featuring an ensemble cast, Brad Pitt is front and center in this movie and surrounded by a supporting cast of mostly unfamiliar faces.

Pitt plays family man Gerry Lane, a former United Nations investigator. While sitting in heavy traffic with his family in Philadelphia, they are suddenly attacked by zombies. They manage to flee the carnage and hide out in an apartment building before being extracted by helicopter to the relative safety of a UN ship out in the sea. In return for ensuring his family's place on the ship, Lane reluctantly agrees to help investigate the source of the outbreak in the hopes that such findings would lead to a cure.

And so begins a globe-trotting mission for Lane. He first travels to South Korea, then Israel and finally Wales. Along the way Lane is able to observe how the zombies operate and learn more about them. As the audience, we see everything through Lane's eyes, and make the same connections he does.

Pitt, who is also produced the movie, originally wanted to make a more political movie but noted that the underlying social agenda became "too much for a summer blockbuster...We got bogged down in it; it was too much to explain. It gutted the fun of what these films are meant to be."

Nevertheless, there are several beautifully crafted moments interspersed through the film; a Hispanic couple who do not speak English selflessly taking in Pitt and his family into their tiny apartment, with the couple's bilingual son helping to break down the language barrier; a crowd of Palestinians and Israelis , overjoyed at being alive, singing together, only for the noise to attract the zombies and lead to their downfall; Lane being shielded and protected by female Israeli soldiers (such a strong female presence is so rare in summer blockbuster movies as to be virtually non-existent. Where else do you see a summer blockbuster movie hero being comfortable being protected by female soldiers instead of being the one rescuing helpless damsels in distress?)

What makes World War Z by far the best movie I've seen this year is that the filmmakers were able to create a very effectively scary and suspenseful film; throughout the movie I was at the edge for the seat, being really afraid for Lane and the other supporting characters. It is not something I get to feel when I watch summer blockbuster movies these days. Case in point: while watching Star Trek Into Darkness and Iron Man 3, I found it hard to care for any of the characters because at no point in the film did I believe that any of them were in any real danger.

It helps also that Pitt is really very believable as a family man, and that he is surrounded by a very strong supporting cast. Lane is very much the reluctant hero, with every action he takes grounded and motivated by his family's continued safety and survival. Again not your typical blockbuster hero, which is a refreshing change from snarky action heroes with their sarcastic one-liners. (I am looking at you, Iron Man 3)

I came into this movie skeptical that I was going to enjoy it. I left the cinema unable to stop raving to my movie companion, who mildly enjoyed Monsters University even with confusing it as a sequel to Monsters Inc (Monsters University is actually a prequel), about how beautifully crafted the entire movie was and how well acted it was. With the movie expected to turn a decent profit for Paramount, a sequel is in the works. When it comes out, I won't be waiting for DVD to come out; I will be one of those catching it on opening week.

4 and a half stars out of 5 stars for me.

10 reasons why Superman is the most boring popular superhero ever

1. He's not even human. He's an alien from the planet of Krypton. If his alien status was discovered, he'd probably be deported from American soil.

2. His real name is a mouthful. Kal-El. Strange doesn't even begin to describe this weird moniker.

3. He commits an unforgivable fashion faux pas. The man wears his underwear inside out, for Christ's sake.

4. He wears the worse disguise ever. Is just clapping on a pair of glasses supposed to be an effective disguise?

5. The man is out of his time. If he is living in the modern day, he would be out of a job and be joining the unemployment line. Journalism is a lowly dying industry and I doubt he would be able to get a job as a journalist.

6. His choice of changing room. The man changes into his Superman costume in a phone booth. Good luck trying to find one in today's day and age.

7. He's perfect and basically the Gary Stu of superheroes. I like my superheroes with real flaws and human frailities thank you very much.

8. His only weakness is Kryptonite, which is like the rarest substance on Earth, but for some reason his opponents always seem to have no trouble at all procuring.

9. Hs alter ego Clark Kent is the blandest person to walk the earth.

10. Too many superpowers. The guy can even shoot lasers out of his eyes. It makes him overpowered and always overmatched when he has to face off against his enemies, which makes watching him or reading about him an extremely dull affair.

That being said, despite having scored only a lacklustre rotten rating of 56% on Rotten Tomatoes, regular moviegoers seem to be having really enjoyed it, to the tune of over $200 million worldwide in its opening week. I am rather curious as to whether the filmmakers succeeded in making him a less boring of a character and how they managed to update him to resonate with today's audience. I won't pay to see it, but I'll most probably check out the DVD when it comes out. Plus, I've always liked Henry Cavill ever since I saw him in 2002 The Count of Monte Cristo.

First look at Benedict Cumberbatch in Twelve Years A Slave

Caption from USA Today for the photo: Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and his first owner Baptist preacher William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) maintained a remarkable friendship. Unfortunately, Solomon's time with Ford was relatively brief during his 12 years of slavery.

Ruminations on The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Teaser Trailer, in Which I Had Eyes for Only Two Characters. Bilbo Baggins who?

Nope. we don't get to hear Benedict Cumberbatch voice Smuag yet, but we do get a first glimpse of him. When I showed the image of Smaug to my British friend, he quipped that he could see certainly see the resemblance between Cumberbatch and Smaug. It must be those cat eyes of Cumberbatch he sees in Smaug's dragon slitty syes.





(Nope, I don't see the resemblance there. On a side note, you can check out this lovely story of Cumberbatch fulfilling the "Make a Wish Foundation-like wish of a girl with cystic fibrosis while he goes about studying lizards at the London Zoo for his role as Smaug: http://wabbitwanderer95.tumblr.com/post/15782615973/meeting-benedict-cumberbatch-the-full-story)

On another side, okay maybe main note, lots and lots of Legolas in this trailer! Peter Jackson sure knows the way to a woman's wallet; more Legolas! I am sure that there would be many female fans of Legolas (mayhap including even moi) who would gladly pay to watch Orlando Bloom reprise his role as Legolas on the big screen at least once, maybe twice, and maybe even more times than that for some of his very rabid fans.



(International trailer, with a slightly shorter running time)

As for me, I'm just simply delighted to see so much of Legolas in the trailer, which should indicate that he will in the movie for a significant amount of time, maybe say twenty minutes to thirty minutes out of a probably 3 hour running time (we are talking about a Peter Jackson movie after all, the guy does have some serious editing issues...remember that 3-hour plus running time for his King Kong movie? The man gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "bloated movie"). All year long my British friend kept on reminding me of a rumor he heard that Orlando Bloom was being paid $2 million for just a 2-minute cameo and my uncle would smile and slightly shake his head every time I express hope that Legolas will be in the movie for at least 5 to 10 minutes. I guess this trailer most likely will prove both of them wrong. Ha! =D



No more having to make do with substitute hot dwarf archer Kili from the first Hobbit film (see image above), which in my shallow, superficial and unfettered female mind's eye was the loveliest highlight of the first Hobbit movie. (Yes, I never thought I'd come to see the day I would ever call a dwarf hot, but Peter Jackson is aware that he's got to have some Barbie Hollywood hunks amongst 13 dwarves or just simply lose our interest entirely, hence Fili, Kili and a very undwarf-like looking Thorin)



(Legolas comparing bow and arrow pointers with Bard the Bowman, played by Luke Evans)

Instead, we female Lord of the Rings fans will now have the original hot archer, the immortal elf Legolas in all his blond locks and blue-eyed glory to once again shoot cupid arrows of adoration into our fluttering hearts. Altogether now, Squeeeeeee! (sounds of millions of Legolas fangirls simultaneously squealing with unbridled delight upon clapping eyes on said Hobbit trailer)

Teaser of Benedict Cumberbatch's Short Film Little Favour

Bigger image here: https://twitter.com/adamackland/status/343356521020796929/photo/1

Photo courtesy of Adam Ackland, Producer of Litte Favour. Photo taken from his Twitter page.

Caption reads: Not a stunt double.