Frost when meeting Nixon always had this careful,  humble and sincere respect towards Nixon; even after their interview sessions at their final rendezvous, there’s still that awkward silence from Frost and I thought that was very well played by Sheen.

The best interaction and dialogue came not in the interview, but that midnight phone call made by Nixon to Frost, they weren’t even in the same room and yet the explosion was there. Langella brought the script to life as he shouted them out in the empty, dark room.

Other players included Kevin Bacon and Matthew Macfadyen who turned in respectable performances but the same couldn’t really be said for Sam Rockwell and Oliver Platt as there weren’t anything impressive about their roles even though they didn’t do anything wrong. Platt however had the best comical lines.

And I thought Ron Howard was right to leave out any romance from the plot. The pace ran very well and the story or anything else for that matter was over done. Editing wise however was too predictable in the sense that the cuts came exactly in places where it should, and that was quite disappointing.

Rating: 8 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

But the story, however close to the truth, was a little dull. Much of the time we see Temudjin got captured, escaped, ran, captured again, and so on and so forth. It got tedious after the second time. And the action never picked up, not that I was expecting it, but there just wasn’t enough of anything to keep the movie interesting.

What kept Temudjin going was his love for his wife, which came as quite a surprise given how Genghis Khan’s ruthlessness preceded his name. And it was the actors, Tadanobu Asano as Temudjin, and Sun Honglei as his half-brother slash protagonist, that really kept the movie going.

There weren’t any great choreography for the bloody fight scenes, which isn’t a big complaint from me. But the final battle was just too weak, with ninja-like commando-warriors suddenly coming out of nowhere with some crazily intimidating long swords; going into the battlefield on their own and then suddenly retreating; and in the end getting killed by their own brothers. That was just weird and too “Hollywood” for me.

Rating: 6 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

But how it has done well was the story of those group of people, and that’s where the difference between this and other Hollywood movies lie; though not by too much as many sub-plots reminded that of Hollywood.

The CGI however were done well enough to be believable. But it was how the visual effects were used to humour in some cases, were most impressive.

But before the CGI kicked in, it was quite a long waiting game in the first half. That’s where the characterisation of the people involved were important and they were done well enough to keep things interesting most of the time. Among the cast, Ha Ji-Won stood out being the most charismatic and likeable.

Rating: 7 / 10

(image from beyondhollywood.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

It’s time Ben Affleck steps out of the negative light that has surrounded him over the years because he is a fine actor and probably a fine director too. Together with the rest of the big names in the cast, this movie was a runaway surprise for me.

The story provided the thriller and Kevin McDonald accentuated it. He did well in keeping the pace and coherence, resulting in what must be the best political thriller of the year so far.

And all players involved were a great watch, especially the partnership between Russell Crowe and Rachel McAdams. Even a small appearance by Jason Bateman and Jeff Daniels were highlights.

From the previous review about an expected style and swagger, the duo here that is Affleck and Crowe showed just how not to do it.

Rating: 8 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Much was to be blamed on the screenplay by Mann and his co-writers, Ronan Bennett and Ann Biderman. There’s a lot going on in the movie but there’s not enough of each.

There were enough bank robberies and enough prison breaks but the scenes flew by too quickly without much detail of what has happened. Some characters were introduced and then they disappear, only to come back an hour later with a few lines and then disappear again.

The love story between Dillinger and Frechette is unconvincing and the chemistry between Depp and Cotillard suffered as a result. A big part of Dillinger’s actions in the second half of the movie derived from his love for Frechette, but the audience will find it hard to relate because there was never any romance involved. All that transpired was Dillinger seeing Frechette and fell madly in love with her, that’s it.

And the story development for the entire movie was also weak. There was almost never a flow in the story and its characters. Things happened sometimes very randomly, as if Mann was really struggling to keep time even with 140 minutes, so he has to skip a few developing scenes.

Having said that, however, Mann did well in directing; particularly with the action sequences that were big and explosive but never out of reality. Working once again with cinematographer Dante Spinotti, the feel of the 1930s was ever dominant and ever real.

Depp once again delivered, though it felt like the script restricted his performance somewhat as he looked like he could have done much more. The only breakout performance was by Stephen Lang as the ruthless and hard lawman determined to shoot down Dillinger. He doesn’t have a lot of scenes but he stood out in every single one of them.

Cotillard fresh off her Oscar win did nothing here to show why she’s a winner. And this is the third movie in a row for Bale to under-deliver with the stoic and robotic Purvis.

But the thing that lacked the most in a movie that tells the story of larger-than-life characters was the story of the characters and why they mattered. Public Enemies should have been much more than this.

Reviewer’s Rating: 6 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

It has a great indie feel to it, but the production you can tell is really grand. There are great shots of India, not that I’ve ever seen India, but the images did transport me there. The cinematography was excellent, filled with vibrant colours but dark and gloomy when needed.

The story was captivating from the start with a sense of intrigue. It had everything; drama, suspense, tragedy, humour, adventure, loss and gain, even from love to sexual abuse. It really was a very “complete” story.

The child actors were absolutely fantastic to be able to conjure up all these feelings from the audience. But so were the rest of the cast who did well in their portrayal, be it to generate compassion or despisableness.

Credit definitely had to go to Danny Boyle for being able to go into the heart of India and really shoot a story about India. How Boyle kept going back and forth between flashbacks and the present were really well done. There were suspense in both to keep the audience wanting to go back and forth with him. But it was also the adaptation by Simon Beaufoy that really told the story.

However, I personally thought that some parts were overly melodramatic. Some parts were overly coincidental to be believable especially in a serious story like this one. And the ending just didn’t have that big fireworks to reel the whole thing home.

It definitely was a very well-written, well-directed and well-acted piece of masterpiece. But to win the movie of the year, I wouldn’t have voted for it.

Rating: 8 / 10

We first saw Tom Hanks as Prof. Langdon swimming laps in a pool and when he emerged out of the water, you knew he has been working out.

Plus he has gotten rid of that absurd hairstyle he so infamously sported in The Da Vinci Code. So this was a good start.

For those who have not read the book, it might be a little confusing at times when watching the movie because so many details had been omitted. Akiva Goldsman, who also adapted The Da Vinci Code, was teamed up this time with the talent of David Koepp.

And between the pair, they have produced a fast paced movie that didn’t even allow Langdon to catch his breath; and when he did slow down, say researching at the library, you could tell something was about to catch up on him instead.

But comparing Robert Langdon to another professor-slash-adventurer, Indiana Jones, there’s no doubt which lecture students would rather attend. Even with the talented Hanks portraying Langdon, there just wasn’t enough charisma in the adapted character. More often than not, Langdon looked like a reluctant tourist thrown into deciphering cryptic codes.

But there were moments when Hanks really shone and right then you knew there’s no one else who could have delivered those scenes any better, especially when he needed to explain all those scientific mumbo jumbo to the audience.

Fortunately there’s Ewan McGregor to do the charming as the young camerlengo. He was magnetic in this role and really gave some spark in his scenes. Together with Skarsgard and Armin Mueller-Stahl; the three of them created more interests towards the fate of the Catholic Church with each struggling for power in the wake of the pope’s death.

Angels & Demons succeeded in many ways The Da Vinci Code has failed. However, if compared to the book, too much of the final act has been left out in the movie to do the book any justice. I was sorely disappointed in not seeing the final ambigram which was amazing.

But as a standalone, the movie is one fun ride that’s thrilling from beginning to the end.

Rating: 7 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

And disappoint he did not. Instead, and even more surprisingly, young Zac Efron was able to pull off the role of a father stuck in a teenager’s body.

Efron put on a performance that is earnest, sincere and fatherly; with a big chunk of humour in between. Who would have guessed the High School Musical heartthrob has so much depth in his acting chops? He even projected the shadow of a middle-aged man with conservative views and attitude.

But credit has to go to director Burr Steers as well for guiding Efron. This is only Steers second feature film and he has done well in the storytelling, given how badly the movie was written. Some staggering continuity issues and credibility-stretching coincidences should have been rectified, like how the son’s tormentor at school is also the daughter’s boyfriend but sibling love clearly wasn’t an issue.

Fortunately, there was a competent cast. Matthew Perry didn’t show up too much, which is best seeing as how he and Efron looks nothing alike. But he did enough with the limited screen time to establish the back story.

Leslie Mann did exceptionally well considering that I have never ever liked anything she did before. Her chemistry with Efron was unmistakable and that really helped when he had to woo her again as a teenager.

17 Again was not a well-written piece, but it proved that Zac Efron is a triple-threat star-power that is beginning to rise. With Efron oozing with charm and charisma, a lot of the shortcomings in the movie was even overlooked. He even managed to lift his co-stars’ performances. Now that’s talent.

Rating: 6 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

Marley was played by 22 dogs, including his puppy years and spanning over more than a decade’s transition. There were strictly no special effects or special makeup used in making this movie, so perhaps that’s why Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston did not age at all over the years, even after her third baby.

In the acting department, there’s not much to fault or cheer about. Everyone was good enough to make their roles likable; though “tamed” would be the word that comes to mind.

Wilson was most mellow when compared to his other movies and lost some of his sparks. Aniston was more careful but ended up delivering one of her best on the big screen. Eric Dane was not much different from his stint on Grey’s Anatomy as the career-successful man-whore. And Alan Arkin as the editor gave off his usual curmudgeon impression.

What’s great about this story was that the episodic incidents that happened in the Grogan’s lives look, and feel, real and relatable. Frankel and company injected little nuances to make certain scenes even more personal and that really made a difference.

The production was not over the top, but not great. Frankel took more caution on details where they counted. The clever shots of two filled wine glasses on a low table where Marley suddenly had one of the all-too-often let-loose antics really gave the audience a good cringing moment.

However, the movie in general may not hit the mark where it should have. Its no-brainer target audience – dog owners – may not get enough of the “pet” side of things as the story explores a lot more on the Grogans’ ups-and-downs instead.

Which is why, for the pet-less audience, it’s a good story that’s well told and enjoyable. And even if you don’t own a pet, you may just leave the cinema emptying your tear ducts… and then going to the animal shelter next.

Reviewer’s Rating: 7 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.

This franchise was never about work. It was all about fun. Who doesn’t like cars? Boys like them, girls like them. And throw in hunky blokes and sexy chicks along with the slickest cars and hippest music, that’s a killer combination right there.

Tokyo Drift had new players and fresh faces. Though it wasn’t better than the first two, the drifting brought the fun factor. And that’s what that movie was about. Tokyo Drift had an identity. This fourth one tries to be too much and too serious; and becomes too pretentious.

First clue as to the timeline of this movie in relation to the rest of the franchise was the character Han Lue. We’ve all seen him bite the dust in Tokyo Drift so this would mean events of this movie are pre-2006, but some of the cars featured are well after its time. So, we are not supposed to take this movie seriously and yet, we are supposed to?

The best parts of the movie were in the beginning and the ending. The beginning with the 18-wheeler destruction and the ending with precision crawls through tunnels in a mountain all make for good adrenalin rush, but everything else in the middle progressed with a snail’s pace that failed to live up to its title.

Yes, that’s including the mindless car race through the streets of Los Angeles because that’s overly done and with nothing new; especially when you couldn’t tell what’s happening as the director attempted at the shaky-camera concept with close-ups on the drivers, and showing how the race was progressing on the driver’s GPS monitor and not with aerial shots! What is going on?

Shifting the gear into D for “drama” and as if the car is running on E for “emotion”, the actors were just not ready for this kind of responsibility. Diesel had no emotional depth, Walker was marginally better but not more; and for the first time the cars didn’t get any recognition, which I have to say was a dumb decision for a movie like this.

By the final act, the movie had lost itself and became too long even when it’s only running at 107 minutes. What the movie should have been: Fast and furious – ending faster and with more ferocity than the purr of a sweet Skyline GT-R.

Rating: 4 / 10

(all images from imdb.com)

Click here to view the embedded video.