movie: Chloe – 3/5 *can see*

It’s supposed to be a sort of modern Fatal Attraction-ish kind of tale but I’m left wanting more. It’s a film with a lot of potential with a good premise and very capable actors. But they are let down by a less than impressive screenplay and bad directing.

The movie is saved from total C grade badness by great performances from all involved, especially Julianne Moore who steals the show as usual. Amanda Seyfried is suitably cast as the seductive, Lolita-ish character.

The attraction between the show’s two leads is puzzling. You don’t really see a natural progression from mistrust/ curiosity to sexual beckoning to eventual fruition. It’s sort of like Hayden Christansen and Natalie Portman’s relationship in Star Wars II. Out of nowhere, the two are suddenly attracted to each other (you need to bend reality to believe it). Though in this case, it is less of an enigma simply because as Julianne Moore’s character Catherine puts it, Chloe (Amanda Seyfried) is breathtakingly beautiful.

I was first introduced to Amanda Seyfried when she played the dead Lilly in Veronica Mars. Back then, I found her attractive but not breathtakingly so. In this film, she displays a coquettish charm and a raw, almost vulgar sexual come ons.

The director has been handed gems of actors but alas, he falls far short of satisfaction.

The lovely Julianne Moore can do no wrong! Although she is wasted in this film, watch ‘A Single Man’ and see how fantastic she is!

This movie is a remake of the French movie Nathalie. I suspect the original would be more enjoyable. Hollywood tends to fuck up movies by “remaking” them.

3 out of 5 stars  *Can See*

movie: The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo 3.5/5 *can see*

Original Swedish movie title is “Men Who Hate Women” so from the title, you can gather it’s not a Nancy Drewish kind of high school murder mystery.

There is nudity, violence (very) but not so much that you would feel uncomfortable enough to give up the movie.

Synopsis:
Wealthy old man hires journalist to find out what happened to his granddaughter who went missing 40 years ago. Along the way, journalist enlists the help of biker-punk-chick and together they discover dark family secrets of the Vanger family while trying to solve the mystery of missing Harriet.

I kinda guessed who the murderer was right from the start. Plotlines of the movie were also kinda predictable. Reminds me of La Femme Nikita.

I think that the movie kind of tries to do too much and there are lots of leftover plotlines you’re left wondering what to do with but maybe they are setting up plotlines for the latter movies. (This is the first movie in a trilogy based on the Millennium series of novels.) Doesn’t disturb you too much but does make the movie very long at over 2h.

Is it just me or is there a certain enjoyment with watching a movie in a foreign language?

Singapore release: Aug 2010

movie: Twilight: New Moon – 3/5 *can see*

Finally got around to watching Twilight: New Moon. Very enjoyable but feels like a placeholder for the next movie. Nothing really substantial happens in this movie, except that Jacob turns into a werewolf.

Dakota Fanning makes a short appearance but I’m sure she’ll be featured strongly in the next movie. She rocks!

movie: The Runaways – 2.5/5 *see if nothing better to do*

As with most such biopics, this movie has a pretty bland story made worse by a pretty bland performance by Kristen Stewart. That whole quivering, bite-your-lip nonsense works when you’re an indecisive (Edward or Jacob?) damsel in distress. Here, she just looks uncomfortable in her rock n roll persona. Since when did Joan Jett ever look so whiney?

The whole movie just plods along, with no real action or climactic event.
I kept waiting for something to happen and about 45 min into the 1h 45min film, I started filing my nails.

2.5 out of 5 stars because Dakota Fanning is one bright star and if she doesn’t pull a Lindsay Lohan, we’ll be seeing much more of her in the future.

movie: The Devil Wears Prada – 4/5 *should see*

When I initially heard the premise, I dismissed the movie immediately as one of those fluff movies. I was very pleasantly surprised that it is not just “one of those fluff movies. It is in reality a different kind of fluff movie, one that showcases Meryl Streep’s Anna-Wintour-like character to great effect!

Meryl Streep never raises her voice in the movie, never so much as raises an eyebrow but she achieves her desired effect of being overbearing and tyrannical just by her mere presence.

I think this movie works because of adept directing and great acting all round. It’s all about the acting people! That’s why they call them actors! (Lousy Dumbledore replacement take note!)

Very very fun movie, not least because of all the great fashion but also because it’s immense fun and another great give-your-brain-an-off-day movie.

BTW, the very yummy Simon Baker plays Anne Hathaway’s possible suitor. Reason alone to see this film!

4 out of 5. Should see.

movie: The Lovely Bones 4.5/5 *must-see!*

Peter Jackson has done it again. He has proven himself capable of heavier stuff than action epics. You feel that sense of ominousness from the beginning of the movie and you have that air of “will he, won’t he” hanging over you.

Jackson has done a great job in not going the traditional route you would expect of such a movie, going all dark and dramatic and moody. He interplays the heaviness of the Salmon family’s grief adroitly with Susie’s own experiences in the “in-between”.

Felt more could have been done to build up to the point where Susie’s hate runs over but I’m not sure if Jackson was ruled by time constraints.

Great, great acting all round. Mark Wahlberg is well cast as the grieving dad and methinks dramatic roles suit him more than he knows. Saoirse Ronan is good as Susie. While she doesn’t really have a ton of acting experience under her belt which shows, British actors seem to understand the beauty of an understated performance and Ronan is superb at portraying Susie’s girlish naivety.

And of course, what’s a villain flick without a good villain? Not much I can write about Stanley Tucci except he deserves whatever millions of dollars paycheck he got.

if you’ve ever experienced loss/ hopelessness, this film will hit you that much stronger. But this is not the kind of depressing flick that will bring you down. When the movie ends, you
experience the same coming to terms that Susie does and you come away feeling almost enlightened.

The trailers are not truly representative of the film and don’t expect a traditional hollywood flick. Heavy use of CGI but definitely essential to the story, and none of it is wasted on making people blue. Definitely a must watch.

movie: A Single Man – 4.5/5 *must-see!*

This is by far the best movie I have seen in a looooong time. As I was watching the film, I knew that it was going to be well done. That I was not going to have a cop out ending, and that acting all round was going to be immaculate. You feel every lift that Falconer feels and you shoulder the same melancholy. And just when the veil of sadness start to lift, it all comes inevitably crashing down. I didn’t realise how sucked into the film and how emotionally involved I was till the credits rolled and it hit me all at once. This film will stay with you for a long long time.

Excellent period sets, SUBLIME acting all round. It is so hard to play a desperate and clueless woman but Julianne Moore. Oh, perfection! And what can I say about Colin Firth? I cannot emphasise enough how important understated performances are and it really pays off in a moody picture like this.

There are no grandiose melodramatic gestures, no cheap gimmicks. Everything is a calculated deliberateness. I was initially fearful that Falconer’s interaction with the neighbour’s daughter would be overworked but Colin Firth’s excellent understated performance saved it. Similarly so for the scene with the hustler. Though I feel slightly irked about the overuse of slow motion sequences, it was definitely effective in setting the mood. A film is nothing without a good story and this is the best story I’ve seen in a long long long time. No CGI, no fucking 3D. Just a good story that will stay with you for a long time.

I read afterwards that they used the same people from the Mad Men team for the sets and costumes designs and it shows. Very true to the period and integral to the overall look.

I look forward to Tom Ford’s next film but this will be his piece de resistance.

If you have not seen it, watch it on DVD. This is a must see! 4.5 out of 5.

movie: Alice In Wonderland: 4/5 *must-see!*

Johnny Depp must be the most prolific actor of our generation! In every single movie he’s been in (well, except Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory), he has been able to have a new range of facial expressions for the role…

I went into the movie half scared that he would reprise his dreaded MJ-inspired Willy Wonka but NO! When you’re watching him, he IS the Mad Hatter.

Bone to pick: why is it the trend now to put new no-experience, average-talent, bland-looking actors/actresses in leading roles? Mia whatshername spoilt the movie for me. IF ONLY she had some acting ability, movie would have been perfect.

Another bone to pick: Anne Hathaway was dreadfully underutilised in her role as the White Queen. All she did was float around the screen with her arms akimbo, looking aerie-faerie (and I mean that in a bad way). And what’s up with the goth makeup and nail polish anyway? It’s like Disney tried to go edgy and failed.

4/5 Don’t bother with 3D. This was a movie shot in 2D then reanimated for 3D so you’re not really missing anything in 2D. Johnny Depp. Lurve!

ps. wonders if the movie would have been a 5 if it weren’t a Disney movie (i.e. Disney kiddie constraints). Or would Tim Burton have gone overboard and made it into a big spectacle?