helmutty

Doug Liman and Tom Cruise paired up together again for a fast-paced and colorful biography on Barry Seal. American Made may not have the blockbuster action but it holds up on its own firmly with the help of a great direction by Doug. Tom Cruise is definitely the main highlight of the film and he is what made it so entertaining.

The story: The pace is brisk; it takes the audience on a crazy ride from the start and never slows down. Though it never felt boring, sometimes I felt that it could have slowed down for some development. After the film ended, it seems that Doug and Tom had a clear mind on just keeping the audience as entertained as they can be. It cuts to the chase and never dwells on anything such as emotions. It moves quickly from event to event. Advantage is that I was not bored at all. Disadvantage is that it felt like a 2 hours montage on Barry Seal's life. There is no real tension or character's development. The realism is helped by the smart decision of filming like a documentary. Be warned: Action genre fans may be disappointed that is no big action. It is strangely classified as action.

Acting wise: Tom Cruise looks like he had lots of fun filming. It is just entertaining watching him immersed himself in the crazy and fast-paced world of Barry Seal. The rest of the cast are decent but not impressive.

Music wise: Christophe Beck created a decent mood of the different years. Since Doug wanted the film to feel realistic, it is not jam-packed with music. There are many moments where sounds and ambiance take the front seat.

Overall: It is not impressive but it is a solid entry to Doug Liman's and Tom Cruise's filmography. I went in with low expectation and had no idea about the outrageous stuff Barry Seal did. And not only was I entertained, I was immersed into the world of Barry.

To be honest, I have not watched the first movie which is a spin off to the popular The Conjuring franchise. But hearing that Annabelle: Creation is a prequel, I guess I do not actually need to know what happened in the negatively received Annabelle (2014). Before watching the prequel, I did not have much expectations. I have seen David F. Sandberg's horror debut, Lights Out, and I found it to a decent horror movie. However, after seeing Mike Flanagan's disappointing take on Ouija, another horror movie franchise, my hope for good horror directors taking helm on horror franchises dimmed a little. So is Annabelle: Creation any good? Aside from conjuring an effective atmosphere and tension, it is generic and lacks of character's development and originality.

The story: It goes pretty straight-forward. A group of orphaned children stays in Dollmaker Samuel Mullins' house and discover a powerful and terrible force living in the same house. Most of the screen time show extended experiences with the evil entity and there are not many dialogues. Things proceed in a straight-forward way. The movie builds an urging tension before unleashing hell on its characters in the climax. The characters are molded to do a certain action that will motivate a horror scene. I admit that David can competently directs an effective horror scene and the movie is all about that. The dialogues during the day time act just as a breather before throwing the audience back into another terror-filled night. The jump scares are clichés and unnecessary. Acting by the young and older cast is alright. The score by Benjamin Wallfisch helps to enhance the mood.

Overall: It is decently shot horror movie but there are many flaws. After this movie, I hope David will go back to directing horror movies that are not based on anything. David has a good sense of holding tension but he needs a better script. Annabelle: Creation may be a crowd-pleasing horror movie but it lacks the originality to stand out from the huge pool of horror movies. It does its job in entertaining you but it is not enough to become memorable.

As a Death Note fan, I was excited when a new film is green-lighted. It is only later when it is revealed as a sequel to Death Note: The last name. Though doubtful, I was still looking forward to see how the saga of Kira could be continued. Crafted as an original story, the first trailer looked intriguing. So how does the final product fare? Death Note: Light up the new world is a decent installment to the popular franchise, paying homage to the franchise. Although it is a sequel, it could easily be a stand-alone film with all the new characters. It may not match the standard of the first two films directed by Shusuke Kaneko but it is a step up from Hideo Nakata's L: Change the world.

The story: Set 10 years after Death Note: The last name, Shinsuke Sato (Director of Gantz) goes straight into the thrills as he opens with a killing rampage in Tokyo. He keeps the pace brisk without slowing down for character's development. The viewers will be thrust into the middle of the cat-and-mouse chase. I think it will be helpful to watch Death Note: New Generation, a mini-series that is the prequel to this. The new characters are interesting enough but nothing beats Light and L. The third act falls to Shinsuke's familiar territory. A thrilling chase followed by an action-packed climax with revelations. Some twists may be a little surprised but if you know Death Note, it wouldn't come off as a big surprise. Shinsuke directs with enough thrills to keep the film afloat. Acting is alright. The characters are fighting for their own screen time. None of the characters stand out. Even Ryuk, the iconic shinigami, has limited screen time. Music is throughout and adds to the thrills.

Overall: It may not hold a candle next to first two films in term of smartness and thrills but it is decent enough to warrant a watch. It is definitely not boring and the CGI has improved a lot. The CGI of the three shinigamis feel more realistic and organic. Is it worthy of being in the Death Note franchise? I would say a 'Yes'. It ends with a common cliffhanger and I wouldn't seeing Death Note taking a new direction. But it will have to wait until this film is deemed as successful. Meanwhile, let's see if the Hollywood remake in 2017 is worthy of its title.

The direct sequel will not win any new fan of the live-action adaptations. Those who hate the first part, this is not any better. This has the same flaws. I enjoyed the first part and I enjoyed the second part. But the novelty feeling of watching the big CGI set pieces somewhat diminishes.

The story: The film starts with a long flashback of what happened previously which is unnecessary as the first part was released just about one and a half months ago. Eren is captured and there is a debate on who he is actually. I won't spoil the story but there is a new titan and a few twists up its sleeve. The short runtime, 1 hour and 27 minutes, does not do justice to the ambitious scale of what the live-action adaptations should have. Thankfully it is not boring and contains enough action set pieces including a heavy CGI climax. However its character's development is underwhelming that I felt almost nothing for them. At the end of it, it does not feel like a journey of the characters, it feels more episodic than a rousing finale. Acting wise is alright; there is no improvement. Music is somewhat jarring in this one. I know the music for the first part is a weird mix but this one is more noticeable.

Overall: It is worth the watch just for a sense of closure but it could be much better given the scale. I enjoyed it but not as much as part 1 due to the rushed pace. I feel that the live-action adaptations should have been at least a trilogy. As a stand alone film, it is pretty enjoyable but as a closure, it does not deliver what it is expected of.

*Minor spoiler* It is inevitable that they do not want to end the story of the adaptations just here. Perhaps due to the success of the films, they may move forward for a third part.

I am not a fan of Attack on Titan however I read the first few volume of the popular manga. The manga is action-packed and tense enough with lots of characters' deaths. The film, noticeably has a few major changes, is fortunately as action-packed but with its short runtime of 1 hour and 38 minutes, its characters' development is undercooked. In the end, ignore the awkward characters' development and you will get one of Japan's most visually interesting films.

The story: It starts slow before punching straight into the destruction and gore. The opening scene establishes the relationship among Eren (Haruma Miura), Mikasa (Kiko Mizuhara) and Armin (Kanata Hongo). It comes a bit cheesy with the music but overall, the scene did its job. When the destruction, it is a spectacle. The Titans are cleverly a mix of human suit and CGI. The huge set pieces throughout the film look visually good albeit some cheap-looking scenes. I have enough knowledge to know some of the changes such as the popular character Levi being replaced by a new character. The setting is true to the source material however as I recall, the setting for the climax is different (It is shot in the ruin outside the wall). The injected humour falls flat. Acting wise is alright for most cast. They have a lot of emotions to portray except looking glum. Some tend to overact and some are awkward. Music is a little off at times but it is serviceable during the set pieces.

Overall: It received overwhelming negative reviews from the fans that the filmmakers had to defend the film's creative changes. I think it would fare better with general audience who are looking for a big budget Japanese movie packed with good visuals and action. I enjoyed it as I didn't think too much about the creative differences. Is it worth to catch it in cinema? If you like watching a big budget film on big screen. As a two-parter film, I am not sure how this will end as the manga is currently ongoing.

There is a special preview for part 2 in the middle of the ending credit.

More reviews on: http://moreviewsed.blogspot.sg

Tom Cruise is back and though he is ageing, he still proves he is capable of stunts. Mission: Impossible - Rough Nation is an action-packed thrill ride but everything is familiar from the mysterious organisation to the double-cross agent. It does not deliver anything we have not seen in the Mission: Impossible franchise. Luckily, director Christopher McQuarrie injects the same thrilling energy into his set pieces and keeps the pace fast enough.

The story: IMF is disbanded and a wanted Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is determined to bring down a mysterious organisation, the Syndicate. Yes, that is all the story offers. The series of action set piece push the story forward. Director Christopher is known for his smaller film, Jack Reacher. From the get-go, he is determined to show that he can handle an action film on a bigger scale. The beginning shows Ethan hanging for his dear life on an airplane. And the action gets bigger and disappointingly balloons down in the climax. This is one of those action films where the climax cannot top the big action scenes in the beginning and middle. The notable action scenes are in the opera and an extended set piece where Ethan breaks into a power station and ends up on a thrilling motorcycle chase. Perhaps Christopher realised that he could not top them so he opted for a more personal and smaller scaled climax. Acting wise is the usual in the franchise. Newcomer Rebecca Ferguson plays a decent character. Music by Joe Kraemer is great.

Overall: Is it worthy to be in the franchise? Yes, it is. It has all what a Mission: Impossible film needs. However, as with Tom Cruise ageing, the franchise is close to loosing its steam with its already-seen-it-all plot. What this franchise could do is to have a fresh take on the spy genre. With the sixth film announced, let's hope it can be something more than just a big- bang action film.

The Terminator is back with a strange title, Genisys. It is clear that they are eager to continue the franchise however they do not know how. Terminator Genisys shows promise to the visionary world of James Cameron but it is hampered by non-stop big and loud action scenes, it does not stop to develop the story further. That said, it still capture the interesting premise of time travel. It is better than Terminator Salvation but that is not saying much. What you get here is series of thrilling and big CGI heavy action set piece that propel the story forward.

The story: It starts off in 2029 where John Connor (Jason Clarke) and Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) set to destroy Skynet. However they are too late, it sends a T-800 back to 1984 to kill John's mother, Sarah Connor. Kyle volunteers to go back and save her. From there, the ball starts rolling. Loud action piece after another. Alan Taylor (director of Thor: The Dark World) proves that he is capable of directing huge CGI action scenes and it shows. Although they are not very imaginative, they are serviceable for action fans. He became too engrossed in showing the audience what he could do with CGI that he neglects character's development and plot progression. The pace moves quickly and does not get boring but when you take out some action scenes, the movie will fall apart.

Emilia Clarke plays a decent Sarah Connor. Arnold Schwarzenegger is back with his usual stone-cold Terminator's expressions. The rest is alright but forgettable. Music by Lorne Balfe is decent enough with enough hints of the iconic theme. However the iconic Terminator theme can only be heard in the ending credit.

Overall: Terminator Genisys is a big budget blockbuster choke full of action and CGI. It is a thrilling yet exhausting ride but there is nothing that particularly sticks out to me. For one watch, it is good. Even the action scenes will wear out if you watch more than one time. If the idea of a planned trilogy move forward, let's hope it will get better.

More reviews on: http://moreviewsed.blogspot.sg

Surprisingly, this seems to be inspired by the book, Tracers, by J.J. Howard. Although, it is not listed as an adaptation, the book and the movie follow the same plot. Taylor Lautner acts in a low-budget action movie that seems to take the Direct-To-DVD route. Unsurprisingly, the trailer is unconvincing. Perhaps, the trailer didn't show much except pointless parkour scenes. So when I watched it, I have already lowered my expectations. It turns out that the movie is just borderline entertaining. Calling it an action thriller is an overstatement. The story: Taylor Lautner acts as Cam, a bicycle messenger, who is in debt. One day, he knocks into an attractive female, Nikki (Marie Avgeropoulos). And guess what, he becomes interested in what she does: parkour. If you are wondering where the story is leading to, for the first hour, it is leading to nowhere. You see Cam training hard and falling for Nikki. There is no sense of threat and there is no life-threatening or thrilling action scene. The last half and hour sees Cam realising what he has involved himself with. The action plot catches up late and it becomes rushed and pointless. It is almost for the sake of action sake, a character turns into a 'villain' and gives Cam the chase of his life during the climax. The parkour and chase scenes are not too bad however at times, they are marred by extremely shaky camera work. Acting wise is just passable. Music is serviceable during the action. Overall: It is screened in Singapore's cinemas. I would say the shaky camera work and tepid action storyline are not worth the watch on big screen. It is disappointingly tepid when it is classified as an action thriller but if you are able to overlook at its classified genre, it may be worth a watch on a rainy and boring day.

Wong Jing is back with more madness, action, explosion and a longer runtime. As every sequel tries to top its original in every way, From Vegas To Macau 2 is no different. Lots of explosion, lots of wacky humour and more CGI, if these are your entertainment, the movie will do you no wrong. From the opening gun fight to the CGI climax, the story is kept brisk to keep your attention in check.

The story: Chow Yun-fat is back as the titular gambler, Ken, with the magic hand. This time, the movie exaggerates his skills with CGI poker cards until it almost becomes a fantasy. But that's to be expected in a Wong Jing's movie. This time, the location is shifted to Thailand where Mark (Nick Cheung), an accountant in a money-laundering syndicate, DOA, is chased by Interpol and DOA. Ken has to save him and help his protégé, Vincent (Shawn Yue). Wong Jing tries to pack in everything that is entertaining into a 2 hours movie. Though it feels bloated, expect a lot of crazy and random fun. Don't expect a coherent story and character development and it will be an enjoyable entertainment. Action is ramped out. The action scene in the middle sees a break-in of the safe house with lots of explosion and gunfire. The movie's climax turns into a CGI set where a fight breaks out in an airplane. Music is serviceable. Direction and acting is fine too.

Overall: It is an enjoyable movie for the Chinese New Year holidays. There isn't anything new served but if you are looking for a low-brow funny action-packed movie, I don't see why this won't fit the description. With everything ramped for the sequel, fans will be able to enjoy the second outing. With where the movie ends, I wouldn't be surprised if Wong Jing returns for a third outing.

More movie reviews: http://moreviewsed.blogspot.sg

The long-delayed young adult book adaptation finally shows up on big screen. Asia noticeably has an earlier release date. The question now is "Is it worth the wait?" For a movie delayed this long, people have already forgotten about it so I won't be surprised if it flops at box office. This gets as generic as what a fantasy period film can be. It is packed with every cliché you find in the genre however it is still entertaining with its action set pieces, decent CGI and 3D.

The story: Jeff Bridges plays a gruff Master Gregory who has lost his apprentice (Kit Harington) during a fight with a powerful witch (Julianne Moore). Thomas Ward (Ben Barnes) is chosen to be Gregory's new apprentice. And there you go, an action-packed adventure with perilous monsters and witches lurking. Nothing in the movie surprises, even the twists have been seen before. There are a few set pieces including a full-blown climax that use extensive CGI. Although entertaining to watch, they are lacking in the creativity department. Acting wise is alright. Music is generic but does elevate a sense of peril during the action.

3D: It is surprisingly decent. I thought it would be another sloppy post-converted 3D movie that barely has depth. The 3D effects work the most during the CGI set pieces with monsters chomping right at your face. It has a reasonable amount of depth between characters and the background.

Overall: Is it worth to watch it in cinema? Only if you are interested in young adult adaptations. If you don't, you are not missing much. It has all the clichés what a fantasy period movie has and does not break any new ground. Is it worth the wait? Probably not. But if you are in need of entertainment, this would just entertain you for 2 hours.

More on: http://moreviewsed.blogspot.sg

It is one of the Universal Monsters reboots. And I am not impressed yet. The re-imagining of Dracula of turning him into a sort of anti-hero sounds promising but the movie is too short to suck the audience's attention. With the short runtime of 1 hour 32 minutes (plus credits), there is little things to do. Everything seems rushed to meet the time. The development of Dracula is rushed. What you will be watching is a generic medieval war movie that just happens to have vampires and bats.

The story: It is a seriously straight-forward plot given the short runtime. Vlad (played by Luke Evans) faces troubles and dilemma of protecting his family and people and turns into the titular monster. Surprisingly the movie starts out slow, there are no big battles. The first twenty minutes puts Vlad in a realistic problem of saving his family and people. When they are threatened, he turns to an mysterious sorcerer for a way out. As he becomes a superhuman, he has to fight the urge of human blood. It leads to what we all know, Dracula. The story is like any other war movies but with a dash of vampires. There are only a few action scenes. Though they are decently choreographed, the disappointing thing is that Vlad's real strength is not properly realised in any of those action scenes. Sure, there may be some great CGI of bats swarming around but that's all. For a big budget movie, it is flat out disappointing. Acting is passable. Luke Evan is so-so. Dominic Cooper is in a wasted role who does not appear many times. Music wise is okay, sounds generic.

Overall: With a big budget, I was disappointed at how the movie turns out to be. It seems that first time director Gary Shore has a visionary idea about the whole thing but it is not fully realised here. Instead it turns out to be an ordinary action flick. Vlad has a lot of potential to develop and show but it is not justified by the rushed runtime and tepid action scenes. If this becomes a franchise, I hope the future sequels will turn out better.

More reviews: http://moreviewsed.blogspot.sg

I know the first live-action movie was not well-received by fans and critics alike but I enjoyed its decent fight scenes. It was a guilty pleasure. I guess I could say that because I am not a fan of Tekken though I have watched the CGI Blood Vengeance. Now, back to this movie, the prequel is shockingly inept; it is extremely low-budget and features some half-baked choreography, story and editing. I may not be a fan of video games but I know if the movie tries to recreate the moments of the games and this has none. The characters do not look anything like the characters in the game. I thought I could let it go since I am not a fan but the fight scenes do not even make up for it or the lack of story.

The story: Kazuya wakes up in some unknown hotel room. He is confused about his identity. Shortly, some action happens. I thought it will be an action-packed ride given the short runtime. However, the thought was short-lived. It does contain some fight scenes but they are shockingly normal; none of the characters have distinctive fight styles. Unlike the first movie, the choreography is boring and uninspired. Each fight scene is quite short; shorter than one and a half minutes. Take out the name, Tekken 2: Kazuya's Revenge, and you will get an uninspired action movie that is almost pointless to watch. There are many annoying pointless slo-mo scenes of characters walking and walking…and bad editing. The acting is not that good too. Music is alright.

Overall: There is almost no saving grace in this. It makes the first one looks like a classic. I could at least see some efforts used to create the look in the first movie but in this, there is none. There is no distinctive style, no interesting things happening and it looks like it is shot fast with not much consideration of locations. There may be many tepid movies based on video games but this is one of the worst movies. It just does not look appealing. Not much to recommend here.

Producer Michael Bay reboots the franchise with Jonathan Liebesman on the helm. As far as gritty reboots go, this is actually far from dark. It has plenty of light moments although things are kept in a realistic fashion (such as the humanistic turtles' designs). It is a movie that all ages can enjoy; it does not have the sexual tone in a Michael Bay's movie. Jonathan, known for his Wrath of the Titans and Battle: Los Angeles, know his action beats well enough and keeps things fast paced.

The story: Megan Fox plays April O'Neil, a reporter, who stumbles upon an attempt robbery by mysterious Foot Clan. She becomes obsessed in finding the mysterious vigilantes who have stopped the robbery. The plot is straight forward but Jonathan keeps the pace fast enough to last through 1 hour and 41 minutes. Mind you, the turtles are not properly revealed until the 20 minutes mark into the movie. Once the turtles are revealed, the movie becomes a CGI fest. Each of the turtle has a distinctive look and characteristics that is easy to tell on screen. Fortunately, Jonathan knows how to direct action decently although at times, the CGI is a little overwhelming. The last 40 minutes is packed with action; a exciting raid in the underground lair, an exhilarating break-out escape and an explosive CGI-laden climax. The action seems to be influenced by Michael Bay; slo-mo and lens flare. The villain, Shredder, is a little bland and solely exists to show off his wide range of blades. His background story is not properly laid out but he does a decent job during the action scenes, showing his menace against the heroes. Acting wise is alright. Megan Fox plays her role better in this than in the Transformers movies. The rest are not memorable. CGI looks good, the CGI of the turtles and Shredder are decent. Music by Brian Tyler is decent but not very memorable.

Overall: It delivers what general audience wants; fast paced story with decent CGI action. Looking at the incredibly negative reviews by the critics, I have to admit that this is nothing more than a mindless action movie with little soul but it is far from the worst movie this year. As usual, the movie ends off by hinting that more things are on the way.

Marvel likes to take risks hiring fresh directors for its big projects. James Gunn, who has only directed two movies and written a few movies including Scooby-Doo, was tasked to bring bunch of misfits to life. The risks are James Gunn, who does not have a lot of credits, and the source material, which is not very well-known to general audience. Fortunately, James has proved people wrong, he could indeed direct a fast-paced entertaining and witty action thrill ride.

The story: By now, general audience and fans should know the formula of every Marvel movie. Guardians of the Galaxy does not change much in that aspect. But what makes it stand out from the others is that these heroes are almost like anti-heroes. In the start, they are not heroic or morally right. They are sort of selfish and only think for their own good. However, further in the movie, they begin to help each other and form a team know as Guardians of the Galaxy. It could draw comparison with The Avengers. In The Avengers, the heroes have to learn how to work with each other. James Gunn does not bother to add long dramatic speeches or poetic dialogues to develop the characters. Instead, he blows things up to let the characters bond with each other. There are lots of action. In fact, it is one of Marvel's most action-packed movies. Right from the start, it is packed with fast-paced explosive action. The CGI works with the action scenes. Rocket and Groot are two neatly animated characters. The rest of the characters are just as entertaining. The villains may not have a lot of things to do except growling in their heavy make-ups and showing bits of their powers. Music by Tyler Bates is good especially in some tender moments.

Overall: Guardians of the Galaxy may have a formulaic story but it has heart. Surprisingly it is touching at times. It has all what a blockbuster should have; thrilling action, great CGI, epic music. Marvel is confident that this will do well that it has announced a sequel. With this just as the first adventure, I would surely like to see more adventures as they face more challenges.

It is probably one of the freshest blockbuster for a while. Although its idea is from a Japanese novel, it does not feel bloated and tired like some franchises in this summer are suffering. The movie is what the trailers are suggesting; big-budget action-packed sci-fi movie. But what the trailers didn't reveal is its surprising sense of humour. It feels fresh because blockbusters nowadays take themselves too seriously and this doesn't.

The story: It surprisingly starts off without an action scene (many blockbusters like to start off with a big bang action scene). Tom Cruise plays William Cage who is suddenly put in the front line of a battle. The thing is that he is not used to combat. The action starts not long when he is plunged into the battle between alien and human. After he dies the first time, he is brought back to life again. And it goes on. That sums up the first act. Montage of big explosive action scenes and him dying over and over again. Surprisingly it doesn't feel tired and boring. I don't want spoil the second act as the truth is revealed. The third act rams up with an exciting climax. Doug Liman holds up the pacing well, things don't feel repetitive (due to different camera angles too). There is definitely a lot of action. There are times where there are explosions for the sake of a blockbuster movie. But what is nice in these action scenes, both Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt have their different fighting styles. Acting wise is fine. It is nice seeing Tom acting out of his comfort zone. Emily does not have to act much except to act cool and swing into action when it is needed. Music wise is fine too.

Overall: So far, the blockbusters this year seem tired and rely on their own franchise to sell (Spider-Man, X-Men and upcoming Transformers etc). Edge of Tomorrow may be based on the Japanese novel but it proves to be something fresh on the big screen. It is worth a shot to watch it on big screen. It is a blockbuster that doesn't take itself too seriously and let the audience sit back and watch the action unfold without being overly complicated and bloated.

When the first trailer was out, it confirmed the gritty tone that is different from the franchise. The movie is dark, gritty and humourless which made the audience and critics disappointed. What's my take? No doubt was I entertained by it. The 2013 version may be smaller scaled but it still manages to entertain and thrill by its decent pace and the mysterious motives of the villain.

The story: The plot and action are grounded. It works more to a crime thriller rather than an action thriller. Jackie Chan plays a new character, detective Zhong Wen. He enters a nightclub in search for his daughter. Little did he know, the nightclub owner hatches a plan to take the customers as hostages. But things are not what they seem to be. There are things that may be a little too coincidental. The whole movie is set inside the nightclub aside from some flashbacks and does seem a little low- budget.

There is still action. However, the action is different from the action in the franchise. It is grounded and the choreography is nothing fanciful. The few brief action scenes consist of car chases and brutal fight scenes. The explosive action in the climax seems a little forced; explosions out from nowhere and for sake of explosions. At least, Jackie Chan performed his own stunts. Acting wise is okay for a Chinese movie. Jackie did his best emoting the necessary emotions. The rest are border-line okay.

Overall: It is worth watching it, seeing a fresh take. Even Benny Chan's New Police Story is nowhere as dark as this is. Although this is smaller scaled and delivers less energetic action scenes, it is still entertaining to see Jackie Chan fighting his way to save the hostages. Would I want to see another Police Story? Sure, I doubt future movies will be as action-packed as the older movies. It is clear that Jackie Chan is ageing.

Rigor Mortis is not a horror movie that is eager to scare the pants out of people. As what the trailer suggests, it is a moody atmospheric horror movie that is borderline art-house. What may surprise audience is that it actually takes its time to develop the story.

The story: It is quite straight-forward. A man moves into a spooky apartment in a 'washed- out' building. It is expected as spirits inhabit the apartment and things happen. Hold on before you think this will turn into a thrilling and scary ride. In fact, this favours slow-burning thrills and pace. It doesn't move in a break-neck pace but strangely the slow-burning pace will urge you to find out more. It builds up to a visually stunning climax where a fight with the vampire ensues. The stylish effects including the slo-mo and a few brief fight scenes enhance the movie, adding a flavour to it. The moody atmosphere of the movie is commendable.

Overall: It is commendable that this breaks away from the other horror movies. Instead it is a bleak but stylish horror movie with a slower pace. Watch this movie without thinking too much and let the story reveal its truth in its own style.

http://moreviewsed.blogspot.sg

It is clear that this version is for the younger people; this has lots of explosions, shiny and sleek CGI and lots of action. The trailers makes the movie looks like a mindless action movie with lots of CGI and action. However Robocop is more than just an action movie, it involves politics and emotions. My knowledge of Robocop is limited. I remembered watching the original movie but I didn't watch the sequels. And that's all. What I definitely do know is that the 2014 version is a toned-down version of the violent original.

The story: The movie starts off with an engrossing news which features Samuel Jackson and an intense but brief action scene. It is not long before another action scene emerges in a form of retelling of an incident by Alex Murphy. It is also not long before he gets into an accident (different from the original). That accident makes him Robocop. You will think that there will be lots of action in the second third of the movie. In fact, it is the second third of the movie that sets it different from a mindless action movie. The pace slows down to give a more emotional feeling to Robocop and the difficulties the OmniCorp company faces. The last third of the movie catches its pace back to its intense climax.

There is a lot of action but they are brief and not very memorable. Plus sometimes, the quick cuts and hand-held camera work become slightly annoying. The action scenes that stand out the most happen in the last third of the movie; a gun fight with Alex's main suspect and the gripping robot fight in the climax. Acting wise is alright, none particularly stand out. Music wise is decent with hints from the original's music, adding a pumping score to an action-packed movie.

Overall: Fans of Robocop may not be pleased with this version as it lacks the violence and the tone of the original although they may get a kick seeing the modified silver robo-suit in some scenes. General audiences like me will be entertained by seeing a sleek Robocop hunting down criminals. It is clear that this tries to set up a franchise. Only time can tell.

With a miserable 5% on Rotten Tomatoes, it seems like I, Frankenstein is one of the worst movies in 2014 and it is only January. The abysmal rating made me lower my expectations and surprisingly it is a solid entertainment. Sure, it doesn't impress on any level but for a January movie, it is an entertaining one.

The story: The story is as generic as a Direct-To-DVD movie can be. The Frankenstein's Monster, Adam, is caught in a battle between Gargoyles and Demons. Many decent action and 'dramatic' scenes are squeezed into the brief runtime of 1 hour 32 minutes. Thankfully the pace moves briskly without becoming boring. However, the short runtime also poses some problems such as skimping on characters' development. But it is expected as this is a mindless action movie which relies more on action and CGI than story and characters' development. Acting wise is okay, nobody impresses. Bill Nighy is playing his usual self as a villain. Aaron Eckhart has nothing much to emote as an emotionless monster except fighting and showing off his body. The rest didn't particularly stand out. Music is surprisingly good and fits the tone of the movie.

3D: For a post-converted 3D movie, it looks good. There is a good depth between characters and backgrounds. It is also effective when it comes to action scenes especially the flying of Gargoyles and the bursting of the demons.

Overall: It is obvious that I, Frankenstein tries to follow the success of the Underworld movies. On its own merits, it provides an entertaining watch with decent special effects and action. I guess it could do better if it is released straight to DVD. It may not be great but for a January movie, it is a decent watch with decent 3D.

The first installment is big, loud, colorful and loads of CGI set pieces. However, the sequel which is obviously made with a lower budget, is more grounded in reality. But it is forgivable due to its action-packed plot and some well crafted action scenes. It does not have the fantasy and fluff look of G.I Joe: Rise of Cobra but it has its fair share of cool gadgets.

The story: This, like the one first one, is action-packed from the start to the end. This is noticeably more intense and thrilling than the first one and it may be due to its grounded action. The story is straight-forward with the remaining G.I Joes stopping Commander Cobra from ruling the world. There are some action scenes worth noting such as the fight scene on the mountains. It is thrilling as you see the two sides clashing with each other. What the action scenes lack is the over-the-top zaniness action from the first one. Acting wise is okay for an action movie. Music is okay but not as good as the first one.

Overall: Those who enjoyed the first one may be disappointed with the sequel as it does not have what the first one has; over-the-top action. I seem to enjoy this better as it is more thrilling than the first. Rise of Cobra is more like a cartoon, it does not really have a sense of dread. I hope to see another sequel.

When the trailers were released, it seemed that The Guillotines will be packed with action with the titular weapon. And with Andrew Lau at helm, what could go wrong? The fact that Andrew wants this to be more of a drama about brothers rather than a guilty pleasure is disappointing. But it is not that bad and this still has some value of entertainment.

The story: The movie starts off with a cool action scene with The Guillotines, a group, using the titular weapons against some 'bad guys'. After that, Wolf escapes from being executed. It leads to another action scene with the briefly appeared titular weapons. However that is all you see for the weapons in action. The Guillotines is tasked to find Wolf. Those waiting to see the weapons appearing again will be disappointed. There is plenty of action but the weapons are not featured in other than the first two action scenes. The climax is a huge disappointment. I thought the climax will the next action scene that will feature the weapons. The climax contains lots of explosions and that is about it. No epic fight scene. Acting wise is okay, not distracting.

Overall: It should not be called The Guillotines. It is one of those misleading title. Without the special titular weapon, this is just an ordinary action drama movie which feels over-long at times. It is not bad but it is a disappointment.

The fifth movie in the popular Die Hard franchise. John McClane is back for more thrills and action and this time, it is in Moscow. John Moore directs this action-packed thrilling but generic action movie. In John Moore's filmography, there is nothing that shows him being able to take on a big-budget action movie. However, he did a decent job in ratcheting up mayhem and action in this.

The story: It is fairly simple and straight-forward as John McClane goes to Moscow in search for his son, Jack, who is accused as a criminal. However, things is not what they seem to be. It is not long before we see things blown up and a cool car chase which involves Jack, John and the bad guys. From there, the action never stops. There are gun fights and more explosions and an explosive finale in Chernobyl. Sadly, the car chase is the best action scene in the movie and it would be hard to top that. True to that, the other action scenes may be explosive but they are not as thrilling and fun as the car chase. The action is well- executed but the things to look out for is John Moore's slo-mo action. Acting wise is okay. Bruce Willis looks older but he is still as energetic as before. Music is good but generic.

Overall: It is worth a watch if you like action-packed movies without much plot. Die Hard fans may be disappointed if they want to see John in full action because in this, it seems that he has taken back seat to allow his son to shine in action. If there is a sixth movie, I would want to see the whole family being involved in action.

It is a pretty straight-forward action flick. With the short runtime of 1 hour and 28 minutes, you can expect this to move briskly and to be packed with a lot of action.

The story: The movie starts with the young Hansel and Gretel losing their parents. They are shortly picked by a witch to be food. They manage to escape and burn the witch alive and that's how they become witch hunter. Cue to the opening credit. The next scene shows them saving an innocent woman whom is accused of being a witch. And from there, the action keeps going. There are some slight twists about the innocent woman and Hansel and Gretel's parents. Other than that, it is purely straight-forward for a good thing. The action scenes are not bad but they are more gritty than fantastical. Music wise is quite alright with Han Zimmer acting as the music supervisor.

3D: It is okay. As many of the scenes take place at night, the 3D effect dampens. It becomes more like harder to see. But when it comes to explosions, blood splatters and action, it is gimmicky with objects flying to your face. Other than that, the 3D is not really recommended unless you have some spare money.

Overall: It is not bad for the month of January. Sure, there is a great potential that the movie never reach but Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters won't disappoint if you want a good entertainment packed with action. Next fairy tale movie is Jack the Giant Slayer in Feb.

A rare horror movie I have ever watched in cinema. The premise and Ashley Greene are the ones that actually attracted me. I thought the tag line of 'You believe, you die' could have become something interesting but unfortunately, it is only touch and go. Ashley Greene is no doubt hot and her acting is not bad. Unfortunately, the movie is somewhat disappointing thanks to its so generic story and short runtime.

The good: Ashley sizzles up the screen. The music is surprisingly okay for a horror movie. I like how it does not resort to shocking the audience with cheap jump scenes unlike other movies that are eager to make the audience jump often. Sadly, those are what I like about the movie.

The bad: Lots of things for a horror movie. The story is nothing original which is a disappointment. It is very straight-forward with no twist. Just some ghostly events string up together. The runtime is one of the biggest crime. It is only 1 hour and 22 minutes and take away the credit's runtime and you get...nothing much. The story just zip to the ghostly events. Nothing much about the ghostly stuff is said. The climax, I must say, is one of the worst climax I have seen in a horror movie. It is almost anti-climax but I won't spoil anything. It just has no resolution. It is also not that scary nor intense. Acting is okay but fans of Tom Felton and Julianna Guill will be disappointed.

Overall: It is barely worth a watch in cinema. I am sure it could be viewed as better when it is released on DVD/Blu-ray. The Apparition is a disappointingly generic low-budget horror movie which is a pity. The cast and the premise should have more potential to be interesting.

I know that this is a remake of the original movie with Arnold Schwarzenegger or a new adaptation of the novel. Either way, I do not know the detail of the plot. So i will base on my review without any knowledge of the original. Total Recall is a fast-paced action-packed action thriller directed by Len Wiseman who's famous for Die Hard 4 and Underworld. This together with his other action movies proves that Len can handle big exciting action scenes. But to tell the truth, if this hadn't had the exciting action, the movie would not be exactly worth watching. The many exciting action scenes are the one that hold one's interest as the story is there as a background to these scenes.

The story: When I read the summary for this, I thought it could have been a mind-bending movie. The tag-line, "What's real?" seems promising. I got a little disappointed when I saw that this movie does not exactly make use of the promising summary and the tag-line. Instead it is pretty straight-forward movie with little twists. It is hold up by the exciting action scenes. Luckily not all is lost, Len can create some thrilling and exciting action scenes that are just worth watching alone. The action scenes range from chases to fight scenes. Although the story did not maximize its potentially great idea, the movie is a breeze to watch with its fast-paced plot and great action. Special effects are good too. Acting is alright. I definitely know you can't compare Arnold and Collin but I think Collin did a fine job. Kate and Jessica are also alright. Music is okay, the getting-tiring usual electronic music heard in almost all of the futuristic movie.

Overall: It is worth a watch for those who have not seen the original like me. I doubt this will be a big hit but hopefully it doesn't end up like John Carter or Battleship. Now, I am seeing if I can catch the original to see what the big fuss is all about.