Collateral (2004)

This Michael-Mann directed film is another underrated movie which I enjoyed immensely. I first watched it a long time ago during a midnight showing as a uni undergraduate without knowing much about it, and I had recently watched it again. It still holds up.

First of all what I like about this movie is the fact that Tom Cruise plays the movie's antagonist, his white hair and another fact which I can't divulge here because it's a spoiler. Tom Cruise almost always plays the good guy in his movies, so it was a nice change. 

Jamie Foxx also isn't as suave as he usually is in most of his movies, playing a taxi driver in this. His other dweebish role that I've seen is in the Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), as Electro.

The film tells the story of the taxi driver, Max who is forced on gunpoint to drive around an assassin, Vincent (Cruise) who has been hired to assassinate five witnesses of a court case on the same night. Also starring in this movie are Jada Pinket Smith as an attorney and Mark Ruffalo as a detective.

Trailer for the movie

The fact that the movie takes place throughout the duration of one night, and in Max's taxi makes it a quite intimate experience. And the dialogue between the two provides the chemistry, in a not-so-typical way. I mean you wouldn't expect a guy who's held at gunpoint to warm up to his kidnapper, would you?

The GOOD: A satisfyingly intimate experience that interspersed by restrained and not unnecessary action scenes.

The BAD: The soundtrack was a little underwhelming. Mann eschews typical orchestration, but some songs used as accompaniment were a little jarring, especially one song from the rock band Audioslave. The same problem would surface again in Mann's next movie, his movie adaptation of the same TV show which he had produced in the 80's; Miami Vice (2006).

My VERDICT: this movie is a 7/10

TRIVIA: Tom Cruise would play against typecast again in his cameo role as a movie producer, complete with a fat-suit and a bald cap, in Tropic Thunder (2008). Tell me this isn't the most hilarious thing you've seen today.

The return of the strong, silent type lead in Drive (2011)

It's been quite sometime since strong, silent male lead is 'in' in Hollywood. It used to be John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, but I guess they sort of fell into disinterest with the loss of audience interest in westerns. In the late 80's early 90's we had wise-cracking, gun-blazing action heroes like Arnold and Bruce Willis, and in the 2000's the taciturn hero made something of a comeback, although it is not entirely similar to those usually found in old westerns.

Jason Bourne brought this trope into the frenetic, shaky-cam action genre. Then EON Studio decided they should emulate Bourne with James Bond, and they rebooted the franchise with a younger, less charming, unsmiling Bond. I see a bit of this trope in Clive Owen's gunman character in Shoot Em Up too. But they are not exactly similar to the roles played by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, in the sense that they are usually characters who are always on the backfoot, being chased by the bad guys after they were double-crossed or betrayed. They are very vulnerable. On the scale of white-knight to anti-hero, they are more often than not closer to the former, whereas the older characters always have this conniving streak in them, even if what they are fighting for is something good. They are always one step ahead of the bad guys, and action is almost never the focus of the movies they are in. They do shoot guns or rifles, but not in a dual-wielding-dive-from-behind-cover type of shooting. And they are not martial artists, their fights are brawls, or fistfights.

This is why I love Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive, his Hollywood debut. The Danish director's movie has minimal dialogue, and the casting of Ryan Goesling as the lead works really well with the lack of dialogue. The story is about a mechanic, stunt and getaway driver who befriends his neighbour and her young son. Things unravel when the woman's husband comes back from prison, and the Driver (he is unnamed throughout the movie) is embroiled with several underworld figures. Playing the neighbour is Carey Mulligan, and the movie is supported by Ron Perlman as a mob boss, Bryan Cranston as the Driver's friend, Oscar Isaac as the neighbour's husband and Mad Men's Christina Hendricks.

The movie shows the kind of man Goesling's character is, a loner who is efficient at what he does, even in speech. He is able to convey what he feels (or that he's hiding something) with very few words, and the progression in his relationship with his neighbour is enjoyable to watch. Even when he is in a scene with other characters, they talk more than he does.

I talked about the scheming part of the strong silent type, and you see the Driver doing this, even though he ultimately does it not for himself. And unlike the slightly similar heroes of the 2000's, he is violent (God, the elevator scene), but not in a gun-blazing way.

And what really sells it for me is that Goesling is not a typical rough-looking muscle-bound, tough guy. He's physically a bit of a pretty boy, used to be one of those Disney kids, and this contrast makes his movie persona even more enigmatic and interesting. He would go on to play this type of character in another movie, The Place Beyond the Pines (2012). Although this movie isn't as good as Drive, I still enjoyed his performance in it. I guess the strong, silent type lead has a torch-bearer in Ryan Goesling.

In addition, this movie has a nice 80's vibe going on with the music (check out the soundtrack) and the cinematography, although it's not actually set in that decade.

The GOOD: Good story made into a exceptional movie by Goesling's performance.

The BAD: Same criticism of an earlier movie of Refn's that I reviewed, Valhalla (2009).The ultra-violence. The shotgun-to-the head scene, the elevator scene. I kind of get the need for blood, but what does gore serve to the audience?

My VERDICT: this movie is a 7.5/10

TRIVIA: Refn and Goesling would collaborate again for Only God Forgives (2013), which I haven't seen. The reviews are not very good though, and I don't really feel like putting up with another head-stomping scene if the movie isn't any good.

Song and dance

Musical movies are one genre that I enjoy watching immensely . There's something about musicals that is hard to dislike. A good musical usually has a combination of these three elements; a well-choreographed dance sequence, catchy songs and hilarious turns by a number of the characters.

The funny thing is, I used to dismiss the genre as fluff, while growing up. I saw Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and The Sound of Music, all of which was a little too childish for my liking so I decided to not pay too much attention to the genre as a whole. Furthermore, I found it very, very hard to suspend my disbelief at the sight of a bunch of people breaking into song and dance mid-conversation.

But one movie arrived to change my perception of the whole genre and the potential it has to escape beyond the fluff and escapism.

Chicago (2002)

Initially, I had heard about this movie and its multiple Oscar wins, but since it is a musical, I had not paid it any mind. And then in university I got involved in theatre and someone showed it and I was completely blown away by it. The movie is about two stage performers who murder their respective partners who then take advantage of their trials to vie and stay in the spotlight. First of all, it succeeded in making me suspend my disbelief with the whole song and dance schtick, using the 'it's all in their head' method of explaining away the characters penchant for singing and dancing. I bought it, and afterwards I found it easier to accept the notion that in musical-movie universe, people do it all the time, even when they do not employ 'it's all in the head' method.

Secondly, Chicago is very cynical and is a dark comedy. It's lampooning of narcissism, infidelity, the justice system and the act of murder sits well with my preference, after the unicorn-sunshine-and-rainbow aesthetics of the Disney musicals. 

Finally, of course it would not have worked if not for its song and dance. The songs are all catchy, and after watching more musicals, I realised that the choreography in Chicago is magnificent. A lot of musical movies unimaginatively transplants their stage production (where most musical movies originate from) onto the silver-screen, but Chicago understands and utilises the advantage owned by the silver screen, to do more than just duplicate its stage production. I give this one a solid 10/10.

Grease (1978)

This movie needs very little explanation, and I also enjoyed it. Like Chicago, its strength is its evergreen songs, and despite its high-school setting (and the oldest-looking American high-schoolers), is at times crass and deals with topics that are not suitable for teenagers such as teenage pregnancy, and contraception. The choreography is a bit straightforward, but every scene with John Travolta is simply mesmerising. No wonder he was the hot stuff in the 70's. Grease gets an 8/10 from me.

The Producers (2005)

This is among the few relatively-recent musical movies that I enjoy immensely. The movie, about a theatre producer and his associate who come up with a scheme to stage a sure-to-fail production to fleece the investors' money, has a bit of a kooky beginning. It originated as a very successful non-musical movie by renowned comic and lampoonist Mel Brooks in 1968, and then in the 2000's he adapted it into an equally successful stage musical, so from there it was only natural that it would find its way to the silver screen. It is a bit of a straightforward adaptation, but since the source material is already good to begin with, the movie adaptation is able to get away with it.

In addition to being hummable, the songs are downright hilarious and at times almost juvenile, and have that trademark Mel Brooks-wit. It is not as dark as Chicago, but the crass-meter is through the roof with Producers. It lampoons everything from homosexuality, Nazism, old ladies, and the Swede. I remember watching it at the cinema and getting my stomach cramped from laughing too hard. And what was even more remarkable, not one second of it was censored by FINAS. Somebody there must love musicals. Or is gay. This, too, gets an 8/10 from me.

Honourable mention

West Side Story (1961) - A bit serious for a musical, but it does drama very well. Wonderful choreography.

Les Miserables (2012) - Strong first act is let down by focus on weepy love story in the second. Not really the movie's fault, the source material goes that way.

Hairspray (2007) - Similar origin to Producers. Non-musical movie gets turned into a stage musical into a movie musical. Bubble-gummy and colourful first half is replaced by preachy love-letter to multi-culturalism in the second.

Men in spandex

As a straight male with typical male interests, I think this is the golden age of male movie-goers. I recently watched a movie about giant monsters fighting in a major city, another about soldiers fighting aliens in an exo-skeleton, and another about superheroes.

Superhero movies are not recent inventions, but these days it seems more and more money is thrown at the production of these movies, more A-list actors are getting involved in them, and the sheer effort put into making them is making me thankful that I have a penis, even more so than before.

Marvel Studios are going full steam ahead with their Avengers franchise (slated to run until 2025) with movies, TV series, short films, Fox just revived their X-Men franchise, Warner Bros jumping on the bandwagon through their Superman vs Batman movie, Green Arrow and the Flash TV series, and to a lesser extent Sony's Spiderman reboot.

Regardless of whoever made it possible for men in spandex to be taken seriously on the silver screen first, it seems that we can't get enough of superhero movies at the moment.

In a way, I'm not sure whether I'm watching these movies without bias or not. Even if they made a Batman movie with Miley Cyrus as the Caped Crusader, I'd probably still watch it I think. That's what happened with the recent Spiderman movies, I can't help myself even though I had known it would suck major balls. At heart I'm still a 12 year old, and I'm sure I'm not the only dude who feels that way.

Why is this genre so irresistible? It's not that it's just recently for me. I watched Daredevil, all the pre-Nolan Batmans, that 70's Spiderman, the weird Captain America with motorcycle and motorcycle helmet, the TV Flash (the 90's one), even that Davis Hasselhoff Nick Fury TV movie (all of which I barely remember now). I'm not that big of a comic book fan. I have Kingdom Come, downloaded only the most memorable titles (Dark Night Returns, Red Sun, Year One). So what makes me helpless when it comes to these men in spandex, only God knows.

Comedy movies

Whaddya know? I just realised that the last time I updated this blog before today was almost a year ago. George RR Martin himself would be pissed off at me if he knew about my writing proclivity. So let's make it 3 for 3, and make this an annual event perhaps?

I love comedy movies, even the fart ones. But I want to write about this one particular period of time, when three comedies caught my attention. Apart from the time they were released (which is why I group them together), they also share a few characteristics. Also worth noting, I watched these without knowing much about them. Turned up at TGV with a few friends, decided to watch a movie, and decided which particular movie to watch, and they all unexpectedly pleased movie. These are three modern Hollywood comedies that I've enjoyed immensely and watched repeatedly.

1) Zombieland (2009)

When I first learnt about the movie, I thought to myself "Another zombie movie?" I mean they were remaking zombie movies left and right five years ago so it's not like we were short of them. Comedy zombie movies too. There was Shaun of the Dead, and Malaysia's own Zombi Kampung Pisang. But my friends wanted to watch it so whatever. But boy was my presumption wrong, it had me hook, line, sinker from the get-go, with Metallica's For Whom the Bell Tolls as the intro. The pairing of nebbish Jesse Eisenberg and unhinged Woody Harrelson was spot on, and when tough-as-nails con-women on-screen sisters Abigail Breslin and Emma Stone were introduced, it made the dynamics even more hilarious. 

Even better, Bill Murray had a brief but very cameo. I won't spoil it for you but he was magnificent. Let's just say it involves make-up, a shotgun and a Ghostbuster showing. That day I realised I was enamoured with Emma Stone.

2) The Other Guys (2010)

When I saw the trailer, I did not think much of it. I thought the whole discussion the Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg's characters have in the trailer about how unrealistic movie explosions are, after a building blows up just before they are about to enter it, is a bit contrived.  Ferrell and Wahlberg play two NYPD detectives who are at the bottom of the pecking order in their department who go after an embezzler, despite the resistance of their superior (Michael Keaton). But again, my friends wanted to watch it so I went to watch it. Again I found it hilarious, and not in the usual Will Ferrell fashion. I like comedies that skew my expectations, and that's what The Other Guys do. From the Samuel L Jackson, The Rock and  MLB's Derek Jeter cameos, to Ferrell's wife and how they meet, it is one curveball after another. Furthermore, and this is another similarity among the movies I'm writing about. It more or less grounds itself in what was happening at the time, the economic collapse at the moment.

3) Horrible Bosses (2011)

Much like The Other Guys, Horrible Bosses grounds itself in the climate of economic collapse and the ensuing shrinking of the job market . Three friends (Jason Bateman, Charlie Day and Jason Sudeikis) have to resort to offing their, err, horrible bosses (Kevin Spacey, a brunette and often lingerie-clad Jennifer Aniston, Colin Farrell with a combover) who make their work lives miserable, as they are not too eager to find a new job in the current climate. In their attempt, they are helped by a self-styled 'murder consultant' played by Jamie Foxx in a cameo. What sells this movie is the chemistry between the three friends. 

Recent movies round up

It's been awhile since I watched an underrated movie that I like, so this time I'll just do a brief roundup of the recent movies I watched. It's blockbuster season again, and we welcome back cinematic explosions and men in tights.

My limited time now means that whatever entertainment I indulge in, I have to make sure that the enjoyment is guaranteed, that means I can ill afford to experiment with my movies and have to watch the well-rated mainstream ones. That's also why I'm still single, I mean committing to a woman does not guarantee success these days heheh.

1) Godzilla (2014)

When I first learned about this movie, I went "Really? But why?" and did not think much about it. The 1998 Roland Emmerich version is forgettable, even if slightly enjoyable, so I wondered why another adaptation was deemed necessary. But when the Asian trailer came out, it showed another monster and I decided I had to watch it, as that has to mean that Godzilla is not the antagonist, like the role he plays in the 1998 version. But I did wonder, as to why they revealed the inclusion of the winged monster (Muto) in that trailer.

I cannot answer that without spoiling it for you, but suffice for me to say that this is the strength of the movie, minor plot twists throughout the movie. Enough to get you surprised, but not to make it the focus of the movie without them feeling ham-fisted. 

The director took something that could be straight forward and unmemorable in the hands of lesser directors, and made the movie stand out. And Bryan Cranston's casting made the human element of the monster movie better. And I'm not a fan of the Japanese Godzilla, but other Internet users say that this version is more accurate to the original character. My only gripe is that there is not enough monster battle, something that I share with many other viewers. However, I concur that something as awe-inspiring as the sight of two monsters levelling San Francisco must be shown in moderation, or the excess will detract from the experience. Godzilla gets a 8/10 from me.

2) Edge of Tomorrow

I just watched this science fiction flick yesterday, and it was an enjoyable experience. It's nothing to shout about, but it's good nonetheless. A soldier, played by Tom Cruise, who is forcefully-conscripted to fight in an alien invasion finds himself reliving the same day over and over again every time he dies, which means that he is able to train himself and learn about the true nature of the aliens, with the help of a war hero played by a blonde Emily Blunt. So it's like a combination of Starship Troopers, Groundhog Day and the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

The effects are cool, the plot okay and the chemistry between Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt is believable. The best part of the movie is when the point of view unknowingly shifts from Tom Cruise's character to Emily Blunt's, so the viewers are left wondering whether what is happening on the screen is happening for the first time or it has happened before to him. I give it a 7/10 too. By the way this movie is originally from a Japanese teen novel titled 'All You Need is Kill'. P/S: I would shamelessly ignore the war effort and die repeatedly if that means being greeted by a stretching Emily Blunt every time. Watch it and you'll understand.

3) X-Men: Days of Future Past

Admittedly, after the suck-fest that was X-Men 3 I would have given DOFP a miss. But First Class sort of revived the franchise so I gave DOFP a chance, although I was still reluctant that the inclusion of the previous franchise's cast would bring along the bloated-ness associated with it, and with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. I was glad that aside from being an enjoyable movie, DOFP is also able to do something else important to the franchise, ret-con it and open a new chapter for movie X-Men. 

Now if you're not familiar with comic books, to ret-con something means to change the history of a character, to give it a clean slate. This happens a lot, especially with long-running and famous characters. It is understandable, after all after 50, 60 years of publication, there is not much wiggle room left from which to advance the plot. Sometimes it is done casually without much explanation given as to the changes minor or major, a lot of times some supernatural of pseudo-science reasons are given such as time-travel, ripples in the space-time continuum, or magic. It's a bit silly, sure, but still necessary for the longevity of the character and the comic book medium itself. The most recent one is the retconning of the DC Comics universe, now dubbed the New-52.

This is what happens in DOFP. In the future, mutants are hunted by shape-sifting robots Sentinels, and Professor X (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian Mckellen) band together with Kitty Pride, Storm and Blink to send Wolverine back through time to stop an event which brought about the creation of the Sentinels, and eventual the destruction of mutants. In the 1970's Wolverine finds Professor X and Magneto's younger selves to enlist their help in stopping the event.

I love this movie on account of them embracing ret-conning as a tool in their storytelling, much like in the comic books. And they utilise it well, as a lot of times when it is employed in the comics, the writers are criticised for the decision by the readers. Without going into too much detail, in DOFP it is part of the story via time-travel, and it also erases the bloated X2 and X3 from the equation. Furthermore, it also buries the whole humans-are-afraid-of-mutants plot that has always been the main source of conflict in the franchise. There are only so many times that that story can be told. It will be replaced by a new big bad altogether, so please stay until the final credit. DOFP gets a 7/10 from me.

Death Race (2008)

Hey everyone. Apologies, long hiatus, work, etc, etc, etc. Now that's out of the way, let's get down to business. I don't know whether I give off the art-house, elitist aficionado vibe, but I do enjoy straight-to-the-point action movies. Nothing wrong with them, but I think the biggest mistake that these kinds of movies make is taking themselves too seriously.

This is why I like Death Race (2008), starring Jason Statham as Jason Statham. OK I jest, but seriously, dude plays himself in all his movies. Anyway, he plays a wrongfully-accused convict in a depression-era near future, who is sent to prison for the crime of murdering his wife. He is then made to take part in a violent car race with the other convicts that is televised to the whole world by the prison warden, in order to gain his freedom and be reunited with his daughter.

I mean that's the gist of it. I don't want to tell you more, because it's a movie about a violent car race. You have to see it for yourselves. Think 18SG Speed Racer. 

What I really like about the movie is that the director Paul W. S. Anderson, understands that it is an action movie and gets straight down to business. You can scarcely catch your breath before the carpet is wrung from underneath you and you're thrown into another action sequence. The movie knows its lead is an actor with the acting chops of a dinner table, so it does not try to veer into dramatic scenes for long. It's one car race scene after another. Come to think of it, it could be that the pacing was a necessity after all, and not an artistic decision.

Which is why I can't stand the Fast and Furious franchise. It's also about dudes who race cars (or used to be), but they always make it melodramatic. "You're my best friend, how could you betray me?!" "How could you pretend you were dead all this while we grieved for you?!" Shut your pie hole, Vinnie D.

I remember thinking to myself right after the credit starts rolling: "Hmm, that was...efficient." The busier I get these days, and the less time I have to watch movies I have, the more I think that more movies should be like this. If they know that they are no Inception or A Few Good Men, be quick about it and show us the good bits. Enough talking and DEFINITELY no crying please. No way they're gonna really convince us that the giant space-faring robots are TOTALLY GOING TO DESTROY EARF, GUIZZZE, we can't really relate to the threat on the life of the US president that is posed by the Muslim but suspiciously multi-racial looking terrorists, and yeah you paid too much for the lead actress so now you have to shoehorn her naked quivering form into an awkward love scene to make it worth it.

Intro set piece, exposition, car chase, final exposition, second set piece, plot twist, final set piece, boom! Movie's over in under 90 minutes, $100 mil in worldwide collection, 55-65 rating on Metacritic. That's how it should be done.

The GOOD: Enjoyable for an action movie, and does not overstay its welcome with our attention.

My VERDICT: 7/10. Knows what it's supposed to do, and does it well.

TRIVIA: This movie is actually a remake of Death Race 2000 (1975), starring David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone.