doomas10 Reviews

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)

A remake of episode IV

[6/10 · 16 December 2015]

Story: the script written by Abraams himself along with Lawrence Kasdan (who co-wrote "Empire" and "Jedi") is a solid block of fan service towards Episode IV. It follows identical story patterns - desert planet, kid ready to go off on adventure, mentor comes along the way,etc - but some nice (humorous) twists left and right. Although it delivers with no cringe-worthy scenes, Abraams seems to be focused too much in "New Hope" as he tries avoid the (hilarious) wrath of the internet fan boys. Whereas this is not necessarily a bad decision, it would be been a greater challenge to try to distinguish his film from old ties and allow himself to follow our (old and new) heroes in different settings rather than familiar ones. Of course, this is Star Wars, it had never been about breaking the rules or groundbreaking story material, it is all about family relationships.

Themes: The character interaction is worth the price of the admission alone and it is simply magical to see all those icons that you love talking to each. Main focus here remains the connections between them and the family ties that each one may carry on their shoulders. It had always been a eye catching dynamic that has been explored in the last six films successfully - how Luke reacts to his father's news, how Anakin is going to save Padme, etc - and if it is not broken why fix it? Abraams knows he has a goldmine of characters the audience is willing to see in action surrounded by love, betrayal, friendship, care and heroism and commits rightfully so.

Characters: Episode VII boasts a phenomenal cast - from the main protagonist duo to the film's primary villain. It's a pleasure to have Harrison Ford back as Han Solo with the most scene stealing moments and his chemistry with Fisher and Mayhew (Chewbacca) still holds strong since 1983. It is evident that Ford is having a blast at the iconic role and it seems that it has not passed a day since the concluding events of the "Return of the Jedi". Carrie Fisher has little screen time (unexpectedly) but does justice to the material and regarding Mark Hamill's appearance much cannot be said without giving anything away. Among the newcomers, Daisy Ridley makes a strong impact - likable, fierce and vulnerable - she brings a freshness to the Star Wars myths by being almost at the center of the story in a rather dominant boy- ish series. John Boyega is surprisingly charismatic (and amps the humor to 11!) although his character is rather blunt sometimes and feels like filler. Other wellknown cast members are either minimized cameos - Max Von Sydow, Gwendoline Christie come to mind, what a waste!, or glorified ones - looking at you Oscar Isaac. and this is where the film mostly crumbles. An overabundance of characters offer almost nothing at the proceedings instead they are used as an excuse to move the plot forward. It is admirable that Abraams tries to recreate a vivid world of Star Wars but at one point, we are not caring for most of them as they carry almost no significance or dramatic weight.

Villain: The best element in the film, main player here is Kylo Ren portrayed by Adam Driver. A rather menacing (and badass) presence, his story arc is by far the most interesting with some nifty emotional touches. Driver plays Ren's obsession/confusion to perfection and surely has the most development in the movie. Not only, he summarizes what is wrong with the dark side, tiny little details regarding his emotional attributes build up his character without requiring much heavy handed exposition or long monologues. At this part, Abraams and Co have succeeded tremendously and Driver's performance carries a dramatic (and tragic) weight reminding the glory of "Revenge of the Sith"'s final act.

Direction: Abraams' direction is solid, dynamic and evidently from the Star Trek entries serviceable with similar blended display of CGI and practical effects. However, despite the presence of some inspiring dog fight sequences, Abraams seems to struggle with the lightsaber battle suffering from close ups and intense edit despite the atmospheric setting. It is always good to see no lens flare! - thank you for that - and him trying to keep consistent with the visual flare of the previous films. Following George Lucas's directing (and static) style with a bit of more dramatic movement in the space scenes feels like a natural evolution for a modern entry in the SW canon. Particularly, there is a wonderful shot of Finn fighting his way through a Stormtrooper squad while on the background Dameron is blasting lasers on Tie-fighters. Brilliant. however, it does not bring back any memorable moments due to his insistence to follow the patterns of Episode IV. Although there is a clear enthusiasm, he gets caught in his own excitement to recreate probably his nostalgia. All six films boasted some truly memorable set pieces (Vader vs Luke in Empire, Duel of the fates scene, pd race, Emperor confrontation in Jedi) or visual style (who can forget the almost renaissance like lava landscapes of Mustafar?), yet here, despite the state of the art talent involved, the films feels more a fan service checklist rather than a fully fleshed out adventure.

Despite being a technical thrill and a treat for the holiday season, Episode VII though lacks any emotional punch while it is focused on pulling off the nostalgia flag rather than initiate excitement with something new. Abraams has done a serviceable job as the franchise's first helmer with adequate action scenes and a great cast. He falls short though as he sidelines interesting personalities, events and mini plots threads at the expense of the fan service with a blink and you miss ending that sets up further entries.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

Brilliant film!

[10/10 · 27 March 2014]

Now "The winter soldier" is everything a Captain America movie should be. While it maintains some of the humour that now has become the trademark of Marvel films, TWS is way more serious than all of them combined. And this is truly where the film feels so brave and yes different than any other superhero flicks that we have seen.

Which brings me to the most important point, the plot. While of course it is not going to be the most original or complicated film of the century, there is the basic screen writing elements that so much lack from modern day blockbusters. You have the (likable) characters and a mystery they need to solve along with a racing clock. It reminded me the 70's political paranoia thrillers (3 days of the Condor - another Redford link, The parallax view, Z) and it is a welcome tone that makes the WS to differentiate itself from the rest. There are strong scenes regarding political fear, control, and information manipulation but it never feels bloated or overbearing. the purpose is to entertain even if it manages to squeeze through a bit of political views with Rogers replacing the viewer's voice on screen. At one point there is a talk about who is who which results in every man for himself mayhem in one of the most interesting sequences that you may see this year. We do not get this stuff these days!

Besides the charged plot, the introduction of new characters and the mega mayhem in the streets of Washingthon DC, the Russos have found time (and they should bloody do since TWS is 2 and a half hours long!) to inject some sentiments in the proceedings - a visit to Peggy, a confrontation with Fury regarding SHIELDs actions, Bucky's memory recall, Natasha's kissing talk. They could have easily skip these "crap" but instead the extra running time feels adjusted and coherent with a bit of more characterization which results to bring us closer to the on screen counterparts.

However, the action is what took me by surprise. The bar has been set higher now. It is truly unbelievable to think that these two directors (of the "Community" fame) came with such inventive ways of using Cap's shield. Finally, the shield gets to be seen in all of its glory. In addition, all the fist fights (and they are many) are excellent examples and putting the glasses to the school of frantic edit (which I truly despise) with varied and rapid choreography. A terrific elevator fight sequence probably stands out as truly memorable whereas the encounters with the Winter Soldier never feel repetitive. The Russo brothers keep changing the game from stealth and cloak missions, to car chases, to gun fires, to dog fights, to fist fights. There is something for everyone here and it is arguably among the finest I have seen. Impressive considering their credits. Real stunt work (backflips, wrestle moves, somersaults, etc), real fights and it is a pleasing sight to go away from superhero duels of the Avengers, Thor and Iron man. These characters rely on instincts and bullets. No more and no less and most of them do have some brutal moments for a PG-13 film (and blood too).

The actors are absolutely brilliant in their roles. While Evans came out as a bit arrogant in the "Avengers" and the least interesting character, here he truly shines. First time ever, I actually bought what he was bringing on the table. This is a soldier who believed in protecting the people and their freedom. Here though, in the modern era of espionage with multiple intrigues and political events, he finds himself unable to identify which side he is on and for what. At one point he even considers himself Fury's caretaker of terrorist "problems". The other side of the coin is Samuel Jackson's Nick Fury and Robert Redford's Alexander Pierce. It is nice to see Jackson expanding his role from 1 minute cameo in "Iron Man" to a fully supporting actor here. But the real standout is Robert Redford. Kevin Feige (the producer) probably knows how to do casting because so far there has not been a single acting mistake. Bringing heavy-acting-weight Redford to a superhero film is actually a bold move and while most movies do not focus on the talented cast, here the Russo brothers give Redford plenty of close ups and necessary gravitational dialogue that kept surprised me for a "summer" and "mindless" blockbuster. Antony Mackie plays Falcon believably enough and it is very good to see a great supporting turn instead of being the comedic sidekick. The winter soldier now himself is as you would have expected? probably the best villain outside Loki(!) in the marvel films. A truly unstoppable and cool killing machine that shows no remorse or regret considering his complete disregard (and destructive) actions throughout the film. Shaw manages to bring a bit of menace to a generally light hearted series of fantasy films as he has to act more with his eyes rather than sharing any scenes of actual dialogue.

Is it perfect? Of course not but it does not feel that it is drugging forever or raising any boring flags. There is plenty of plot, intelligence and sweet characters moments to keep anyone satisfying. This is blockbuster at its finest, a superhero film with heart, immersive action and subtle touches of humour. Totally recommended.

Bad 25 (2012)

A truly insightful documentary to the most anticipated album of all time

[10/10 · 24 March 2014]

Spike Lee could be a filmmaker with varied performance when it comes to films but here he truly displayed some professionalism covering the recording era of Michael Jackson's "Bad" album.

Not only, he collects interviews from numerous individuals of the music industry but he carefully tries to avoid the myth and gossip traps that surround the name of Michael Jackson. This is a musical documentary at first and not a closer look as to who or what Michael Jackson was.

An argument could be made that Lee decided to focus all his energy to the musical genius that Jackson was and how hard he worked to finish an album such as "Bad" including his any skills. The man was composing, producing, writing the songs, choreographing his videos, singing and dancing live, vocal arranging and beatboxing! It is a shame that the album itself had to endure endless criticism for not reaching the levels of "Thriller" and at that period it was considered a disappointment despite selling more than 30 million copies worldwide and being accompanied by the most successful tour of all time.

After 25 years though, "Bad" is considered one of the best albums out there, a record unparalleled in terms of hits and quality balance. "Bad" is a record richer than "Thriller" with less filler and more meat. Lee's interviews, raw footage and behind the scenes tactics prove just that. Taking a massive 5 year period to be recorded, with hundreds of (finished) demos, lots of artistic input and various musical collaborations, "Bad" now gets the treatment and (much awaited) spotlight it deserves.

Bad 25 celebrates the rich sound that Jackson's third solo record contained along with diverse musical engineering and craftmanship. The album has so many hits on so many levels - the short film of Smooth Criminal, the anti gravity lean, the West Side Story dance number of "Bad", the rock gritty sound of "Dirty Diana" with Steve Stevens' input, the psychedelic vibe in "Leave me alone" and the powerful anthem of "Man in the mirror" are just cases that display, suggest and reveal a creative and hard working genius at the peak of his game.

It is really sad that people still tend to emphasize any negative or controversial aspects that Jackson may had. But the musical one is not one of them. For he remains at the pantheon of the most brilliant musicians and performers ever to walk the earth and perhaps, the greatest. And we cannot take that away from him. Ever

300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

hyper stylized gory epic

[7/10 · 7 March 2014]

Well that was unexpected. Capitalizing in the huge fame and legacy that the first film generated, "300: rise of an empire" seemed to be the most unnecessary sequel of all time. Based on the yet still unpublished Frank Miller comic, ROAE certainly lacked Zack Snyder behind the camera and the charismatic turn of Gerald Butler in the now iconic role of Leonidas. After 8 years, it is kinda weird that the sequel appears now, in a film era where the then novel green screen and uber slo mo effects are now typical, mediocre and standardized in hyperstylistic Hollywood action sequences. So.....how does this one fare?

Well, it is actually pretty good. Loosely based on the battle of Salamis where Xerxes' navy was pwned by the small (remaining) Greek fleet, "Rise of an empire" offers plenty of the jaw dropping candy and action that made the first film so memorable. Only it just cranks them up to 11. Noam Murro (a director with the credentials of the romantic comedy "Smart People" and some commercials) does not inspire actual confidence before watching a sword and sandal Greek epic. Having said that, I was pleasantly surprised to see money shot after money shot delivered with epic zooms and astonishing camera work. Murro definitely brought his Snyder notebook on this one and it feels more of an expansion of a style rather than pure imitation.

"Rise of an empire" has astonishing visuals, and simply it is a feast for the eyes. Each shot has a poetic beauty (a night on a rocky beach with a huge moon) and even the most violent and gory scenes carry with them enough magnificence ready to enchant you. It is like watching a hyper realistic movie canvas becoming alive in front of you. Assisted by gorgeous cinematography by Simon Duggan, Murro stages his set pieces in fantastical locations combined with a witty production design from Patrick Tatopoulos (Independence Day, Godzilla, Underworld, Silent Hill). It is style over substance but man what style!

Now, let's be honest, we are not here for the context of the film neither to see if it is accurately depict the historical events that shape pretty much the fate of then ancient Greece. As a Greek I take no offence on that. I am here to see action fantasy cinema and nothing more than that. If there is a good depiction in the films is the heroic deeds of Athenians that tried to fight off a huge navy with inventive ways (and smaller ships). Everything else (non character wise), is pure fiction Instead we get bloody, gorgeous action with eye popping visuals in 3D. Obviously, the characters are literally one dimensional with any backstory added in matter of seconds and there is not a moral ambiguity regarding their actions (and consequences). Murro moves from a set piece to a set piece with only a handful speeches giving us a break from the displayed massacre. Carnage you want, carnage you get. I lost count of the bodies that went flying, chopped, burned, etc more than once. If war is your thing, then rest assured you will not be disappointed. Especially, when it is presented in such poetic fashion. Surely though that does not mean that everyone is going to like this. those annoyed with Snyder's style and visuals will find little to love here. Those of use who embraced (and there are many) oh dear, you are for a treat.

The cast is rather interesting with Lena Headey doing a good job as Queen Gorgo. Sullivan Stapleton is by no means Gerald Butler but surprisingly he brings some gravitas into the film and it was wise to have him as a smaller built hero than Leonidas who relies more on his brains rather his warrior skills to defeat his opponents. Rodrigo Santoro (by far the most intriguing visually character) still suffers from limited screen time with zero development (no the start does not count) or any special skills since he became a god king. So the whole film relies on Eva Green's shoulders as the poisonous Artemisia, commander of the Persian navy. She chews the scenery and it is almost impossible to take your eyes of her, first because she is gorgeous to look upon and secondly because she is the only one to have a bit of psychological synthesis for her role. Green seems to be having a blast and is one of the probably the best female villains on the big screen in the last decade (along with Faora).

So this is "300: rise of an empire". It is a great film? No. However, it is one of the best looking movies of all time and for that it is required to be seen in the cinema in immersive 3D and IMAX! There are tones of great and swift action, epic money shots and fantastic cinematography. No point really if you miss that on the big screen! Sometimes style is all you need baby! It is like watching a huge building being demolished. It does not last for long, is shallow, but the spectacle of the moment is fascinating to witness.

+ stunning visuals + 3D is actually a character on its own + Eva Green, great villain and performance + excellent action + Stapleton is adequate but ... - but he is no Gerald Butler - one dimensional characters - story does not really go anywhere

7/10

Silent Hill: Revelation (2012)

style over substance but what style!

[6/10 · 19 November 2012]

What I heard about this film was utterly false. Apologies but I personally do not think that SHR is worthy of a 6% score at rotten tomatoes. It is not the best film of the year, it is not a horror masterpiece and like many others it does not pretend that it is. Despite having a smaller budget (and scale) in comparison to the original, SHR is actually pretty damn good for what it has to offer.

I never found myself bored although the convoluted plot and incoherent story elements do cause problems to those who have no idea what to expect from a SH movie. But enough of this. I am not going to talk about the story - the what?- but rather enthusiastically note the excellent visual style of the film. Michael J. Basset (the one of "Solomon Kane" fame) continues here to have an eye for visuals and disturbing images. Particularly, the mannequins and the mental asylum corridors are strong representations of the SH world and to his credit when you have such a limited budget, being able to pull this off (with the addition of well crafted practical and CGI effects) is something that deserves praise.

The 3D is outstanding - this is coming from a guy who despises 3D. It's nice to see that there are still directors outhere willing to offer aggressive camera-work. In addition he is not holding back when it comes to the gore (although the first chapter was way more ...brutal) - limps are flying around, pieces of skin are being cut off slowly, head roll in glorious sl-mo but unfortunately there is nothing memorable such as Pyramid Head's skin ripping scene in the first film. Adelaine Clemens is adequate in her role and believable enough and I have to admit that I was pleasantly surprised with her performance. However, there is no point in talking about SH without mention the nightmarish creatures and the creepy sets. Despite the budget limitations Basset enacts the same miracle that he did with Solomon Kane and mostly success - He creates a much more elaborate world than what the money have to offer. PAtrick Tatopoulos, the guy behind the monsters of the first film is in top form again with the now legendary Pyramid Head being shown in all of his glory. Maximum contribution to the general feeling of SHR is the use of the game's original composer Akira Yamaoka music - You really need to listen to his work!

Of course there are problems: Every time you think, there might be a tense scene, it evolves more into action-horror oriented thus destroying any potential for a memorable and horrifying set piece. The jump scares are not very ... effective, brilliant actors are almost wasting their talents in cameo scenes (Carrie Anne Moss, Malcom McDowell and Sean Bean) and that demon design at the end brings too many memories from Hellraiser's cenobites. As for the storyline, well this is going from clue A to clue B to collect clue C and somehow yes, this is actually complicated with all the alternative realities!

Overall, SHR is not a disappointing film. If you like the first one, you will like this one too. It has all the necessary elements to make it a passable yet entertaining horror film even if it is not particularly scary. But it is damn good to look at and we should admire the talent behind it. Ignore the reviews: go and see this film.

6/10

+ creature designs + splatter + excellent 3D + atmosphere + music + aggressive direction + nice main character and protagonist - what's the point of having famous actors/actresses only to appear for 2 minutes max? - not enough tension... - thus not scary - story goes from clue A to B to C

Resident Evil: Retribution (2012)

Mindless, uber-stylistic fun

[7/10 · 30 September 2012]

The latest installment of the "Resident evil" franchise is here. I am not a huge fan of the series but I am able to recognise their pop corn value. There is something awe-inspiring when it comes to zombie killing spectacle from heroines. Milla Jovovich should be proud since she has evolved into the number one action female lead of all time. She has kicked ass in "The fifth element", "The messenger", 4 Resi films, "ultraviolet", "the three musketeers" and "a perfect gateaway"! Her presence is what solely keep this franchise from becoming a corpse. Not a bad actress at all, she utterly convinces that she is a killing machine. However, the rest of the cast are as wooden as possible although it is not their fault but Anderson's script. Most of the previous characters are back but have nothing to do most of the times or anything alike with their computer alter-egos besides sharing the same costumes.

The plot holes are gigantic, the characters completely one dimensional while their actions are lacking logical explanations and do not even follow the momentum from the previous films. One main baddie even assists Alice to fight off Umbrella who surprisingly still after the zombie apocalypse, has a large number of security guards, laboratories and test facilities that operate completely!? Does these elements mean that the movie is atrocious? No. You just need to switch off your brain, relax and enjoy a string of well-orchestrated action scenes patched together with intense industrial soundtrack and high production values. This is a vast improvement over "Afterlife" and there are many scenes that pay homage to the first entry of the series. It has a constant video game feeling to it, with our heroes going from arena to arena to fight off monsters, zombies and various other monstrosities in destructive and explosive set pieces.

The choreography is pretty impressive (the fight between Alice and Jill has been nicely done) along with excellent production design and action driven music, courtesy of Tomandandy. Anderson's direction definitely has style (the opening credits are all in reverse!) and I really hope for him to start directing other people's scripts besides his own. His dialogue is exposition at its finest with characters just explaining what is happening and where they are going next. No room for character development at all. And it is such a shame really because besides the first RE film, this one has lots of interesting ideas about biohazards and corporations that do not even get any exploration but rather mentioned briefly in a line or two. As I pointed out earlier on, do not expect a solid story. This is nonsense well-made zombie carnage crafted in such a way that won't generate any thinking but it sure is going to be handy for a movie night during winter. And the most positive thing: it looks bigger and has a better pacing than "Apocalypse", "Extinction" and "Afterlife" all together.

+ music, production designer, fight choreography, visuals, nice script ideas, Milla! - script, one dimensional characters, heavy exposition, shame that the ideas are not fully explored

6.5/10

The Expendables 2 (2012)

They are back - this time they bring noise!

[6/10 · 16 August 2012]

So here comes the masterpiece that "Expendables 2" is. Not really no. Far from masterpiece. But the thing is, it is an absolute blast from start to finish literally. The first chapter wasn't that bad at all but the excessive amounts of CGI bood, the terrible special effects and the quick/cut fight scenes betrayed the purpose of the film. Instead of being a massive throwback to the 80's clichéd and unbelievable flawed action flicks, it felt a mis-mash of seriousness - first half - and goofy fun -parodic action sequences in the second half. "Expendables 2" does not repeat the same mistakes. Simon West who knows two or three things about action ("Con air"), relies and mostly succeeds in delivering high octane action blasts. Every possible gun is on screen and on use. Vehicles such as tanks, choppers, bikes, trucks, aeroplanes and jeeps are blown up into tiny little pieces in glorious fashion through massive and loud set pieces. The film is rated 15 here in UK so you get to see bloody shootouts that may remind you some of the chaotic sequences in ...wait for it..."Hard Boiled" (not choreographed though).

What makes E2 that much fun is the unique combination between all these (mostly) old and new stars. Sylvester Stallone still has it and it is remarkable that he doesn't try to focus too much on his character or to a potential love interest (Yu Nan - more on her later) because that would look ridiculous. The rest of the cast are great, particularly Dolf Lungren who kinda steals the show with one liners and weird facial expressions. However, the biggest sensation....comes from Jean Claude Van Damme as the psychotic Jean Villain!?. Not only the actor is having a blast as the primary villain, he is actually sensational. Every time he is on screen, he actually acts more like Villain and not as Van Damme. His presence is kinda magnetic and his physical mannerisms very interesting. I cant believe i am saying this. Sure he is not going to get any awards for that performance, but it is a) a nice change, b) good to see him on the big screen again and c) actually a pretty decent villain. Van Damme FTW! Willis and Arnie have more to do this time and it is really cool to see three of the biggest action stars of all time to kick some serious amounts of ass by blowing up buildings, destroying walls or ... by driving Smarts!

Biggest disappointment comes from Jet Li though! He is merely in the film for 10 minutes and then he is gone (that's no spoiler btw). In the first film, most complaints aimed at Jet Li's character who didn't have a particular scene to shine. Here West understood this and gives him a whole new sequence with frying pans to do something. His exit from the team early makes room for Yu Nan's Chinese agent who is simply to put it terrible. Never convincing for a special agent, her line delivery is astonishingly bad, her relationship with Barney awkward and frankly i did not care for her. She is out of place and looks confused all the time. The filmmakers should have tried to get Michelle Yeoh for that part!

The fight sequences are better this time around (highlight the airport shootout), the action bigger and better and the actors seem to have more fun. Quieter scenes when these characters are talking and interacting to each other with jokes and philosophical talks are always a plus in an overloaded action film as we actually tend to like them and they do not come cheesy. E2 is not a terrible film but neither a very good one. In fact it is not even a good one. But it is a decent effort against to all those boring CGI infested action films of the last couple of years with a great cast and some AWE-inspiring set pieces. And any film that makes Van Damme cool again, is considered awesome.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

An emotional and satisfying conclusion

[10/10 · 20 July 2012]

"The dark knight rises" isn't the perfect film but it is definitely the most emotional of all three. Yeah i said it (but neither were the previous two). But i would be lying if i was telling you that i did not have goosebumps in numerous scenes or wet eyes during some of the most honestly acting (and touching) moments in the history of cinema. This time around, Bruce Wayne is being tested mentally and physically against Bane and his hordes for the salvation (or destruction) of Gotham city. However, what really works here and makes all the way through our heart and emotions are the sharply drawn and fleshed out characters. There will be people claiming that there is an large number of individuals that take lots of screen time, yet they actually feel and act as normal "humans" rather than archetypical Hollywood algorithms. Christian Bale should get a nomination for his work as Bruce Wayne. This is his finest Batman. You really root for him simply because like all of us, he has limits (spiritual and physical), limits that will be broken.

On the antagonist part, Tom Hardy as Bane is physically impressive. Make no mistake. This is not a well built body with perfect abs and biceps in order to lure teenage girls to the cinema. Instead Nolan's Bane is a colossal muscle mountain that could snap your spine in a split second without making the slightest of effort. Just like the edgy and twitchy Joker, his unique body language and swaggering mannerisms will certainly leave an impact to the viewer's mind and rightly to do so.

However, do i hear show stealer? Anne Hathaway - she is a fully lethal, sexy ass kicking babe. I cannot believe i am writing this but she was incredible! Of course she cannot fill Michelle Pfeiffer's (iconic) shoes simply because in the Tim Burtonland, Catwoman was a demented, emotionally scarred woman with certain supernatural status at the background and played more like a tragic villain. Here, Hathaway plays Selena Kyle as a sexy, independent, thief that is balancing between good and bad all the way through the film. A fitting antihero and blurred line between Batman's justice and Bane's menace. What i really enjoyed is how similar she looks, sounds, talks and moves like her counterpart in the animated series, comics and videogames. She is even waving that ass with a cat like pose. I absolutely loved this character!

The rest of the (multiple) cast are doing what they are doing best servicing the reliable (and sometimes surprising) story written by Nolan and Goyer. Both have done their homework with Nolan's direction becoming even more confident than before. His camera sweeps and embraces the vast cityscape of Gotham, day and (much more impressively) in the night. His exquisite taste for night time shots is something that deserves the IMAX ticket alone and brings back memories when Michael Mann used to be a cool director. But what about the script? How can a film surpass the heavy expectations of the Oscar worthy "Dark knight"? Wel, it doesn't, but instead it goes around them. How do you follow that? You can't. Thus Nolan and co-s have done the wise decision of not repeating themselves terminating unwanted comparisons with the previous installments. The first entry was focused to the personal spiritual odyssey of a man and the second evolved into a crime thriller about masked vigilantes and themes of anarchy fused with (in)justice. On the other hand, the third chapter goes back to conclude the journey and the degenerated anarchy, brings back everything (and everyone) together and ties them nicely in the vast present of terrorism and economic prevalence (in a lesser degree). The Joker was full of surprises and meaningless through his performance reflecting the psychotic personality. Bane has a plan - to destroy Gotham city, to live in order to see its ashes. He doesn't want chaos, he wants order through chaos which is an interesting concept. The layout of anger, injustice, blurred morality (chase the Batman the vigilante or the robbers?) and motives is displayed through a complex array of events and almost possible situations (military law anyone?) that can be thought provoking and mind feeding.

Certain twists and turns do exist to maintain our thrilling interest to the sky but if you are a devoted Batman comic book guy, then you know kinda the story. "The dark knight rises" reaches superior film level status when it comes to powerful emotional scenes and outstanding sequences that will have your heart filled with grief and your sentiments exploding (for spoiler reasons i cannot mention any of these). The exceptional score by Hans Zimmer underlines and sometimes more than enough enhances the power of the unfolding events on screen into our mind. The A-class acting manages to inject real pathos and drama into the proceedings and this is what lacks from the movies nowdays. A good story, a fantastic cast and a large group of crew members that could make films like these possible. The movie is exceptionally shot, the action is plenty and more epic than before and the fight sequences between Batman and Bane are astonishing, especially their first encounter.

"The dark knight rises" is an experience and should be seen in IMAX. There is ground here for even more psychological exploration and doubts about moral responsibilities that could reflect into our reality. This is a fitting and satisfying conclusion to the legend of the dark knight. Probably the world's best trilogy?

Battleship (2012)

It sinks like Titanic...although it takes longer!

[4/10 · 11 April 2012]

Is this the latest creation from Peter Berg? The person responsible for "Friday night lights", "the rundown", "the kingdom" and ... "Hancock" managed to outdo Michael Bay and unfortunately in a bad way. I love Michael Bay for what he does. I love the way he shoots chaotic action with as many practical effects as possible. When it comes to car chases and nicely integrated in the GCI fest explosions, Bay is the best. However, there is a limit at how much uninspired and now " i have seen this before" action my brain can process. Especially if it is based entirely on CGI. "Battleship" is not a terrible film but it is truly a bad one. I was expecting it to be at least mindless fun but frankly after a ridiculously funny intro (on purpose) where our douchebag hero tries desperately to get a chicken burrito to his future girlfriend, the film relies heavily on computer game-ish special effects and unlikable characters with really questionable motivations.

Speaking of the effects, while most of them are impressive, the not so friendly ETs reminded me the mess of "Green lantern". They are forgettable, cheesy and a cheap combination of "Halo" and "Crysis" armour suits. For a movie that takes mostly place in the sea (or above it), the sea battles by far remain the weakest visual element since the water is computer generated. On the other hand some of the destruction sequences (such as a falling skyscraper) look incredibly polished but most of the set pieces feel directly lifted and copied from "Transformers: Dark of the moon".

As for the characters, i didn't like any of them really. Not that the actors have much material to work with. Taylor Kitsch's hero is a reckless man (and you enroll yourself to the navy?) who sacrifices Japanese soldiers for his personal conflicts and even though he starts as likable personality. Other individuals serve as satellites and provide nothing more than filler context for a long duration of 2 and a half hours! What's the point of having, the hero, the hero's future father in law, girlfriend, brother, 4-5 American navy officers, 2-3 war veterans, 2 Japanese navy officers (one in a major role), a scientist and a disabled guy with whom the hero's girlfriend happens to be his therapist? There is so much filler that easily this could have been one hour and a half and could have been a blast! Rihanna's much discussed acting debut will definitely not get her a career in Hollywood - much like 50 Cent's- since she is practically ... invisible. Her lines are garbage and so generic along with her body language and actions in the film. Good thing for a navy officer to wear make up and earings. Liam Neeson always walks away with his dignity intact as at least brings some gravitas to his (limited) role. Everyone else gets a screen time of 5 minutes and they should be happy.

Peter Berg's camera work tries desperately to inject as much spectacle as possible with multiple explosions, gun fights and space rockets but at the end it is an empty film in autopilot. We know nothing about the aliens or their motivations and they lack the epicness "Independence day" had. Instead we get to see numerous times terminator like screenshots that suggest a predator alike intelligence. Point is? Something that does not help the matters is the decision if this is serious or not. While it starts like a straight out romantic comedy, it escalates to such cheesy levels that you feel like you are trapped in a swiss cheeze maze although you are the rat forced to eat your way through the walls and at some point you burst.

Taylor Kitsch has leading man charisma and he is better in the funny scenes rather in those that matchoism is required and i would like to see him more into films. There is some impressive camera-work at some places (such as the sinking of the ship in one shot) and some tongue in cheek humour that will bring a smile upon your face. But overall this is at the end an overplayed borefest maybe because we have seen too many (and better) alien invasion movies lately with state of the art effects, similar action sequences and more emphasis to dynamic action rather than American patriotism at its finest. "Battleship" makes "Transformers" look like the "Godfather" in comparison! Abandon your posts and leave this "Battleship". It already start sinking like Titanic..only slower!

Wrath of the Titans (2012)

feel the wrath of the spectacle

[8/10 · 30 March 2012]

Everyone knew and knows that i HATED with passion the first film. It was beyond terrible. It wasn't even mindless fun for my standards. The main hero was annoying to say at least who kept moaning " i will do this as a man", his choices were contradicting with the previous ones he recently made, the direction was faceless, the action utterly unexciting and despite the promise of a monster-gathering, it wasn't that interesting after all. The generic designs and the lack of an energetic direction or at least set pieces generated an incredible borefest. And let's not talk about the story. It made no sense and it wasn't that simple to follow even though the initial premise was "A going to B to achieve C". Only saving grace was the inspiring for the god characters cast which at the end was a wasted artistic opportunity.

Thus, i am in the pleasant position to announce that despite the irrational story presented in the "Wrath", this sequel is ten million times better than the first. Of course it won't be given the title of a "very good" film, hell not even a "good" one, but the "entertaining" caption would be spot on. The talented hack Jonathan Liebesman (of the "Texas chainsaw massacre: the beginning" and "Battle: Los Angeles" fame) manages to bring actually some gravitas and nerve to the proceedings, more compelling (than the first attempt of Leterie) characters, flawless CGI and surprisingly witty creature design and clever production design.

"Wrath" feels actually closer to the spirit of Sony's "God of War" video game series. This can be seen when the Titan Cronos makes his well conceived and executed appearance. At this point the film reaches cosmic proportions, making the Kraken to look like a baby doll. While most films disappoint when they reach the long-awaited climax, "Wrath" offers more and more spectacle of biblic level. The special effects are stunning and i cannot take from my head the scale of awesomeness that was displayed in front of me. The whole screen was on fire and the lava effects looked undeniably...sophisticated! Just for the appearance of Cronos, the film deserves the price of admission alone. This was directed by the same dude of one of the most horrible horror prequels of all time and one completely forgettable "B:LA"?

Or maybe it was the fact that my expectations were so low that i ended up astonished by the effort seeing on screen. Hell, they don't even take themselves seriously. Americanised one liners and some small shots of humor make the whole experience more...fun. The cast is doing what they can with the unfortunately still weak material. Liam Neeson and Ralph Fiennes (give awards to the casting director) are the standouts of the movie with more than i thought characterization and a bit more complicated relationship that caught me off guard. Edgar Ramirez as Ares is also awesome but he has limited screen time like Danny Houston's Poseidon. Maybe a director's cut will add a bit depth? Who knows. And yes Sam Worthingthon is actually DECENT in this rather than a whiny loser. He gets to kick some ass from one famous Greek monster to another unlike the first film where he did nothing (without the help of gods)

Hence, there is not a single shot of sunshine acting, no room to breathe. The sequel moves with bullet speed from one innovative action sequence to another with thrilling fights and larger than life monsters. That's good but sometimes it may tire those who are not familiar to non- stop roller-coaster rides and hand-held camera-work. Additionally, some silly plotwists-gods can die, extra betrayals, other main gods are not present?! (Apollonas, Hermes, Aphrodite etc)- seem to be happening for the creation of more ancient Greek mayhem on screen. My main complaint though is that i still haven't seen a god fighting a god with devastating effects. Maybe the third time around?

Despite knowing the mythology as a Greek inside and outside, this is not an adaptation of the famous myths but a damn entertaining film that knows how to pleasure film fans with non-insulting material. You just need to switch off your brain just before you go inside the theater and all will be fine. Mark my words!

+ witty production design, larger than life blockbuster, epic in scale, good cast, brilliant action sequences - story could have a bit more depth, when are we going to see a god vs a god??

8/10

Chronicle (2012)

I believe i can fly

[9/10 · 1 February 2012]

I had mixed feelings about this. The trailer does not do justice to this film at all. The characters seem to be the ultimate bullies, interested only in women and stupid child-like pranks. Fortunately this is not the case. "Chronicle" reveals the story of three teenagers who discover a meteor-like thing that gives them incredible abilities such as flying, superhuman strength and telekinesis. Things go wrong when they overabuse their power. Or don't they? See, this is how "Chronicle" wants you to believe but the film takes an interesting turn. Mostly based around Andrew, a passive and shy individual who happens to record everything, with almost no friends with almost no friends expect his intellectual and popular cousin Matt.

A frequent problem with the found footage genre is the fact that characters continue to film the occurring events even if the s**t is hitting the fan and people are sliced, diced, eaten alive, possessed, require help etc. Here though a nice trick is that Andrew has such a powerful mind that could do all the amazing things do while lifting the camera to record his achievements. Now that we got that out of the way, i can safely say that "Chronicle" contains some of the best scenes shot in this style. Make no mistake. You won't be dizzy after this. It's like being shot by a pro. Sometimes it never feels like the film belongs in that genre but let's say that it could be a sci-fi-ish teenage drama from a first person perspective. Sometimes the camera holder is not even Andrew and you get to witness the actions from various other perspectives. This is a slick touch.

Now, you think you know the story but you don't. I was positively surprised about the way it unfolds in the big screen and the circumstances that surround it. First of all, all three leads are exceptional actors, especially the vulnerable and angry Andrew and the well-spirited Matt. The characters are sharply presented and while the posters of the film want you to think that about them, really they are just teenagers who desire fun and freedom. Additionally, Josh Trank is wise enough to show to the audience some real friendship scenes with actually funny pranks and quality time spending that bonds the trio together. Particularly, Andrew's school and house environment help portray his psychology better than the other two as we spend most of the sceen time learning his perspective. Towards the (destructive and emotional) climax, in which you already know who is bad and good, yet you kinda root for all of them and that is quite an accomplishment.

The standout scene that gave me chills in a good way was the discovery of the fly ability. You will believe a man can fly. The realistic approach on that sequence is breathtaking and it really elevates you to the clouds, thousand meters from the ground along with the characters. It's been a while since i felt such a strong emotion. How much i would love to be able to do such a thing. Visit places all around the world just like that, with a movement of my body. At this moment, we start investing to the story and its main human components. Their ideas are not to impress the crowds and win the prom queens with their skills. It is travelling, simple as that. Nevetheless, the only minor complaint i could have about "Chronicle" is the sudden and total turn of Andrew. Despite having loads of problems with his classmates, his father and mother, it feels a bit forced to go against society as well (not though unexplainable).

Still, "Chronicle" is easily one of the best films i have seen in years. With its short duration, it contains both originality and innovation with an emotional content and packed with likable characters and a storyline in which the audience could understand and relate to. Josh Trank seems to be a promising director and i am curious to see his next directional effort. Until then, i will dream that i can fly.

The Last Airbender (2010)

The last air bender is a visual feast!

[8/10 · 22 August 2010]

After all the bad press thrown at "The last air-bender" i was expecting something horrific. Is it a bad film? Well according to my standards no. Definitely not. I will by the number what i liked and what i thought was weak.

1. The actions scenes. They are wonderfully done and choreographed and since M.Night Shyalaman has used us with nice camera work, his style is clearly visible from the first shot. He has an eye for some of the most poetic fights i've seen in my life. The use also of slow motion is just phenomenal.

2. The production scale. This is a film truly at a similar spectacular scope of "Lord of the rings" and "Star Wars". Besides the wonderful locations such as Greenland, the sets are just freaking massive and filled with amazing details. I was so impressed when i saw the throne room of Lord Ozai. The iced palace of the Northern water tribe, with small water falls and well crafted zen lakes, i have no words to describe its beauty.

3. The visuals. The whole film proceeds like a poem. It is so easy to watch and even if you do not care about the story, you just gaze the locations. i haven't felt like that since i saw Zang Yimou's "Hero". The addition of crystal clear and eye popping effects from Industrial Light and Magic just add extra points in this visual feast.

4. The benders of the natural elements. That was something i have never seen before and as an idea is pretty much interesting to see how it will is represented on screen. This is a good idea that can produce various action-hell yes-scenes.

5. The cast-OK i know this is a controversial choice but i thought the avatar child actor wasn't that bad but neither that good. Dev Patel as prince Zuko and Shaun Toub as General Iroh are awesome. Their performances are adequate and believable. I really like the relationship between these two and the way Zuko feels.

7. James Newton Howard's music. An excellent soundtrack that captures the main theme of the film.

So these are the positive things i found. Now, i will mention five things i did not like.

1. The duration. i mean for such a rich and expensive mythology, i would expected a full 2 hour, maybe +, film. Instead i am getting the usual 1/40 hours maximum minutes, including the credits..

2. ...which brings me to my second main point. The film looks rushed. Not rushed in terms of production, but rushed as a story. There is no room to have proper acting scenes. Usually most of the film contains dialog about things that have occurred or will happened but they last 2 minutes each. We do not know how long our heroes are staying in the palace of the Northern water tribe.

3. The film is trimmed! All the character development scenes have been erased for the sake of entertainment. There are so many moments where i felt like that. I wanted to know more. This reminds another case such as "Clash of the titans". People blasted the film however, they did not blasted the Hollywood machine for screwing over its directors. To cut from a film almost an hour to increase in market appeal is a horrible act. If you have seen the trailers, you will notice that half actually of the scenes in the trailers are not in the film! Lame..

4... because this is great material. The mythology is rich and its good to see a new world so unbelievably stunning. The characters are intriguing but there is no explanation behind their motives.

5. Finally, major problem is the existence of narration while the camera is traveling or moving. You get to see the kids flying in the air and the girl narrates to us "we were flying in the air....". Then they land to the northern water tribe palace and bowing to the king.... "and we bowed to the king". I mean i can see that! There is no point for narration unless you want to explain something to your audience.

6. The only major difference between the series and the film adaptation is the level of seriousness. In the cartoon, while everyone was so brave, there are hilarious jokes and one liners that "bend" the ice (see what i did there?). The series delivered tones of excitement and fun. Aang-the avatar-is a 12 year old boy who is just discovering his powers and is aiming mostly to have fun! Unfortunately, in the film, Aang is mostly or trying to be at least, dramatic. There is no time for fun and that's why perhaps people blasted it. If you apply the above feeling to the whole movie, the atmosphere is different. The film takes itself too seriously and leaves no room for funny acts or scenes. While personally i am not annoyed, if you try to make your film look serious, then implement more scenes to explain your characters motivations, feelings and actions. To conclude, one small reference about the spirit world. In the series it is established from episode to episode but in the film, individuals are just talking about it rather than showing it or at least explaining something!

It is such a shame because i loved the visual feast that this adaptation has to offer but i can see the trimming parts coming from a mile away. I really like the film that's why it has an 8/10 but I felt it could do so much more! I do hope in the future Shyalaman will restore the movie into its full glory. So this was "The last air bender". Maybe Hollywood learned its lesson about storytelling and 3D conversion process and in the sequel we will get more of the good stuff.

Solomon Kane (2009)

Dark, moody, epic sword n fantasy film!

[10/10 · 21 February 2010]

Before i write my sentences with a structure of a ten year old, i need to say one thing. This film was one of the most anticipated ones ever for me! I love Solomon Kane and of course its creator Robert E. Howard (he created Conan the barbarian as well. Oh yeah!). Now why i was so much into Solomon Kane? Because the trailer looked super promising and James Purefoy utterly convincing as the ultimate antihero. Trailer wise, i saw some crazy stuff. Demons, zombies, sword fights,sorcerers and more. The Result? The movie is just awesome! I was absorbed into huge amounts of awesomeness that this film offers from screen-shot 1! The story is simple and contains a great premise.

The look of the film is just outstanding! When you have a film set in medieval times you need to make it look real. The environment and the surroundings are like a second character. They have to look real. Well in this part the sets (indoor or outdoor) are just amazing. Employing the help from the Czech artist Jan Cilecek, the production design especially when it comes to the interior castle scenes, is just stunning and creepy. The throne room of Malachi or the mirror corridor sequence embrace the screen and show off their vivid detail. The colors, the photography, everything looks marvelous! Same applies for the costumes and make up. I believe Basset put a great amount of detail in the look of the film. It looks so Medieval! Fans of this sub-genre 'sword and sorcery' will not be disappointed. Every possible scene that you have thought, imagined or dreamed for this type of film is here. Hanged people on trees among mist in the background? Check. Skulls on the walls? Check. Snowy forests? check! Dark castles at the top of a hill? Check! This is the wet dream of every proper fan.

Congratulations to the creature design and effects team. I have to admit that in a world filled with eye popping effects, they managed to create some really nasty ones. Honestly, when the first demon arrives, i had my jaw dropped on the floor. Not because it is something unique or original but it is how it is being presented. His voice, his clothing, generally his outlook is taken from our worst nightmares. Did i mention that he/she? has a FLAMING SWORD? Besides this dude, there is variety of stuff in the film. Witches, zombies, priests, sorcerers, a weird masked dude with a big sword who "infects" people with his malice, turning them into slaves and many more. These are ideas well executed as well as being brilliant!

This is not a kids film as there is an enormous degree of violence and limp chopping. Decapitations, stabbings, flying limps and many more are present. Solomon's fighting style is truly unique and far away from the choreographic boredom of Hollywood. Michael J. Basset (the director of the creepy "Deathwatch" and the ace " Wilderness") made an adult fantasy film. On the other hand, the movie is entirely supported by Purefoy who fits the role perfectly. His eyes express his sadness, anger and his continuous effort for redemption. He is just superb and a likable antihero which you can related to. He leads a great cast which includes the names of Max Von Sydow, Jason Flemming, Pete Postlethwaite and Mackenzie Crook among others.

How about the story? Well we've seen it so many times however, it was written way back in 1928! Nevertheless, i think the concept of a guy who tries to redeem his soul is very interesting and intriguing especially if it is set in medieval England. I enjoyed his back story and i cared about his drama. The action doesn't start until the second half of the film (although there is a terrific intro) since before that we are following a hermit Kane wondering around and meeting with the rest of the cast. After a very unhappy incident Kane kicks ass as he used to do. Just for the final third of the film- the confrontation with the sorcerer is just cool-it is worth your money. Period. And did i mention that there is no side kick or funny lines? Thank god.

Besides all the enthusiasm written above i have to admit that the film feels kinda short. If it was two hours (or more) i would have been more pleased than i already was. The character Malachi was doing more of a cameo rather than being an antagonist who makes our (anti) hero's life miserable through the whole film. I would have liked a complete face off between Kane and Malachi as well. Sword vs sorcery! In addition, i thought that certain intriguing characters had no purpose or at least there were underdeveloped thus they were more "satelites" rather than something really important in the plot.

Final thoughts: the action is ace, bloody and well orchestrated, the sets and landscapes amazing, the lead actor perfect, the supporting cast solid and the effects(not many thank god!) serve the story. Special plus to the creatures design team! One of my favorite movies of all time! However, more character development and some answers for certain "satelite" personalities and their purpose would be ace but we can not have it all can we? All i can say is this: i left the theater with a smile and faith for the genre!

Have a 10/10

Viva Michael J Basset, Viva James Purefoy!

P.S the villains are ace!