Unthinkable - The Hollywood film that Hollywood doesn't want us to see.
A white Islamic extremist has hidden 3 nuclear bombs in nondescript locations throughout America, and threatens to set them off unless his demands are met.
The race is on to find the bombs before they go off anyway (by themselves), but here's the catch - the terrorist Yusuf (Michael Sheen) has helpfully decided to turn himself in for interrogation, fully expecting to be tortured in the process. The American government duly obliges, sending in special interrogator H (Samuel L. Jackson), one of their most extreme, sickest operative, willing to go to any measures necessary to "extract" crucial information.
FBI Special Agent Brody (Carrie Ann Moss) tags along as a moral anchor of the story, but finds herself increasingly powerless to act against H's form of extreme torture and methods.
And just in case you're still not sure what you're in for, one of the first things H does upon meeting Yusuf (formerly known as Younger), is to cruelly cut off one of Yusuf's fingers. This is torture with a capital T, graphic but not overly so, yet leaving us in no doubt as to what to potentially expect for the hapless Yusuf.
Carrie Ann Moss' Brody faces off H as played by Samuel L. Jackson, whose methods more than border on the unthinkable.
Who's the villain? Both Michael Sheen & Jackson are powerful in their respective roles as the tortured & the torturer.
The premise is astoundingly clear - just exactly how far would you go to save the lives of potentially millions?
Samuel L. Jackson & Carrie Ann Moss here present two different sides of the coin. H will stop at nothing, while Brody will maintain that there has to be a limit.
Stuck in between is the excellent Michael Sheen, the man who has to endure everything. The antagonist who set the stage, and yet also a protagonist of sorts, who shows us just how morally bankrupt we as a society can be.
As we cringe under Yusuf's sufferings at the hands of the relentless H, we have to constantly remind ourselves of the film's other unthinkable, the intentional murder of millions for a cause we can never truly understand. Sheen shows his character's fanatical side, yet is undeniably human in the way he responds to the threats and torture, while remaining committed to his cause.
But the truly unthinkable, the act that will make most audiences balk, is one that is so simple, yet so frightening that it crops up only at the climax of the film. Yet, if you had any sense of realism or an idea of what violence truly means, then you would probably guess it from a mile off.
It is not the film's fault however, for I truly believe that American audiences will not be able to take any further than what's presented in the film.
Which is why it is a pity the Unthinkable was released straight to video. The production value of the film is excellent, so that was never the problem. Instead, the film's disturbing content has proved its downfall. Nonetheless, it has presented a moral dilemma that is both apt and probably current. The pity is that American audiences are simply not mature enough to consider the film's implications.
Americans have to be portrayed as heroes, never as villains. Americans will never want to consider the lengths that one has to go to keep the "peace". But there is a difference between graphic violence, and the unthinkable - and that is something we have to think about....
! Strong Ensemble Cast: The three leads turn in strong performances, with a special nod to Michael Sheen for displaying both the fanatical and vulnerable side of his character with equal believability. Jackson is his usual frightening self, somewhat reminiscent of his portrayal in Pulp Fiction. Carrie Ann Moss betrays the empathy in her character beneath all that steel, which her character uses to make the most important decision in the film.
Query for:
? Flawed Script:Strangely enough, I am in no way slating the script, since I can understand the motivations behind those flaws. The film is quite well paced, but the flaws are a little glaring. Yusuf's obvious stupidity and naivety in turning himself in is a rather grandiose but necessary plot element (so he can be tortured). It is explained as his bid for martyrdom but seriously, he should have expected the outcome, though apparently it is unthinkable for him after all. That particular unthinkable is easy to anticipate, yet is only revealed at the end as a kinda twist, which of course falls somewhat flat if you were waiting for it to come all through the film....
? Straight to Video: Hello? It is a pretty good film and should deserve a run in the theatres. Boo America!
I could barely remember what it was like to go on an adventure of a lifetime then emerge from it all bubbly and excited.
Which in a nutshell is what Sammy's Adventures: The Secret Passage is about.
Little Sammy the sea turtle (his mommy must have named her brood while in the egg - one by one by one by one...) hatches from his egg to begin an epic journey, the journey of life - complete in 3D animation.
Along the way, he chums with best pal and jellyfish slugging Ray (one of his supposed many brothers, who looks a suspiciously different breed, ie. colour of turtle); takes 'flying lessons' from hungry seagulls; gets caught by humans and joins the hippy movement; and goes on a hunt for a secret passage that brings him to the south pole. And of course at the end of it all, he finds his long lost love Shelly.
It's all good kiddy fun.
Too bad I'm not a kid anymore.
Life through the eyes of a turtle - an eagle's eye view....
Oh crab!
Enjoying life in the sun - in a makeshift luxury yacht....
Seriously, I wouldn't have watched this movie if I hadn't been asked to do a review. Though to be fair, there is no doubt whatsoever who the target audience is - children - and more specifically those below the age of 12.
And it was telling, sitting amongst an adult audience, that there was hardly any laughter throughout the screening of the preview. On my part, I peaked at a grand total of one good chuckle - when the baby eaglets were pecking away at Sammy's cute bald head.
If you're looking for a good balance of adventure and intelligent humour like say in Finding Nemo, Sammy's Adventures simply will not fit the bill.
The writing is too uninspired for that. Everytime Sammy loses Shelly, a new character pops up to tell him where she is. Deus ex machina in a cartoon? No need to explain to the kids....
Not to say there aren't any saving graces.
Sammy's Adventures proves once again that 3D belongs best for now, in animation rather than in god-awful epics like Clash of the Titans.
The technology isn't perfect. Landscapes and individual objects still look like those cut outs from 3D picture books (to which by the way, there is a wonderful nod during the end credits). But the renditions of sand and water and waves can somtimes border on the sublime. The producers too, make full use of the 3D animation to produce some stunning 'in your face' visuals - the unforgettable image being that of a menacing and inquisitive snake.
And for a kid's film, the movie also brought up a few environmental issues facing the world today - the threat and pollution of oil spills; the problem of whaling etc. These can certainly be appreciated by a young and impressionable audience.
All in, Sammy's Adventures: The Secret Passage can be a fun and unforgettable ride for little children, but adults sans kids may not be too eager to catch this cute animated turtle.
Moometer Reading: Moo-o?? Query for: ? Being a kid's film:Being a movie primarily targeted at children, it would be unfair to judge it with adult eyes. And yet there are easily plenty of animation films - Finding Nemo among others that are funnier and that appeal to both adults and children. Sammy's Adventures thus gets a generous Moo-o when its rating could easily have been worse. ? Poor Scripting: It seems pretty clear that the writer was thinking: It's for kids! Who cares? Well, I did for one.
There is practically no karate in this new Karate Kid.
But aside from that little wistful desire that America should finally get the rest of the world right, there is really little doubt that the former Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Will Smith, has served up something of a gem, while officially presenting his son and heir apparent, Jaden Smith, as a future and upcoming heartthrob and superstar.
Simply put, Jaden is his father's son. Adorable at such a young age, the boy nevertheless displays an irresistible charm and an uncanny flair for humour that his father is so famous for.
Sure, he still lacks a little something in the emotive department, but like his character Dre Parker quips while being trashed in table tennis by a Chinese man (???), "Dude! I'm only 12!"
JS & JC - striking up a fine camaraderie....
Jackie Chan takes on a bunch of kids... ouch - for them....
Jaden Smith - your up and coming action superstar?
But enough of that for now. How fare this 2010 version against its 1984 original?
The film is essentially a remake of the 1984 Karate Kid starring Ralph Macchio and the famous Pat Morita. In essence however, this 2010 film is actually quite different in tone.
What sets this apart from its predecessor is the injection of quite a bit of comedy, and in a sense, it works very well.
Jackie Chan delivers some of the most hilarious deadpan lines as Mr Han, the kungfu master masquerading as a local apartment caretaker.
Equally funny, though perhaps unintentionally, is the sight of the legendary Jackie Chan pitted against a bunch of Chinese kids (all smaller size than him), when Mr Han tries to save Dre's skin. Somehow I can picture a bunch of white kids ganging up on Pat Morita's Miyagi, but here? I don't wonder if JC himself wasn't embarrassed with the match-up.
The Karate Kid (2010) IS funny, I give you that. And to be fair, the representation of Chinese Kungfu, especially showcasing a trip up the mountain (Mt. Wudang perhaps?), is excellent.
But I cannot help but suspect that the comic element is both a boon and a bane. What worked well as a coming of age movie as the 1984 original was, seems to now have been lost amidst all the laughter and levity.
Ralph Macchio & Pat Morita from the original - a more coming of age experience....
I remember one of the original film's iconic moments, when Daniel (Macchio) adopted the crane stance against his opponent - that was quite something else.
But while that scene is repeated in the remake, it ended up being more funny than actually inspiring.
The story may be the same, but the setting and tone are certainly very different. Perhaps it is a reflection of the times we're in. But in no way should those detract us from an otherwise entertaining, and fairly successful remake.
The highly successful franchise has seen a total of seven sequels to the original A Nightmare On Elm Street, so the producers decide it is time to do a remake and reboot - a reflection of current film making trends I'm afraid.
But how do you take a novelty idea from 1984 and rejuvenate it for today's audiences when it has all but worn thin?
The idea of course is to reinvent, to update on the original to fit the times. Unfortunately, this 2010 version fails on both counts, making for an ultimately plodding storyline with cheap and predictable scares.
To be fair, this is indeed a basic remake, with only a few major changes from the original. The characters are more or less the same. The major difference is the serial child killer in the original has been relegated to a maybe only child molester (I know, what in the world...?).
And of course there is Freddy Krueger, the masterful and iconic Robert Englund now replaced by Jackie Earle Haley, who was himself incredible as Rorschach in Watchmen.
I still remember as a kid, how a classmate of mine fervently did his own impression of that scissorhand arch villain - complete with hat, glove and claws - and he called himself Freddy.
This was the effect Freddy Krueger had on scores of young lads throughout the world for a good decade and more.
This new Freddy unfortunately, lacks character. The face looks too plastic, though that is supposedly done to more closely match those of burn victims.
No teenager or otherwise is going to be inspired or truly frightened by this Freddy, certainly not when Freddy lookalikes, parodies and caricatures have been around for over two decades.
Yes. Hide that face a bit more, because Jackie Earle Haley as Freddy Krueger doesn't quite... cut it....
Rooney Mara and Kyle Gallner play the only two characters in the film with any personality at all....
Do not fall asleep in class, or Freddy's gonna get you....
While there is little to take away from this reboot, the production value is nonetheless quite decent. The cinematography and sets are also pretty good, though an over-reliance on poor CGI tends to let the film down.
The supporting cast are forgettable, underdeveloped, or just plainly Freddy fodder. Only the two leads, played by Rooney Mara as Nancy and Kyle Gallner as Quentin, give any favourable performances at all.
Reviewers slam Mara's "wooden acting", but I disagree. I have known girls like that - shy, hesitant, unsure of how to express themselves - and to see two atypical teenagers fighting off a nightmare villain is exactly how you want you want horror flicks to be.
And the jury will have to be out on the new Krueger. Clearly the new makeup has created a stumbling block, but Haley is a talented actor, and had there been an expansion on his backstory, his performance just might have worked.
Unfortunately, the film chose to introduce precisely that, then inexplicably abandon it in the end for a silly twist that fooled basically no one.
Haley is signed on as Freddy Krueger for another two installments, so I'm hoping he really gets to make that role his own, to give it a new lease of life.
Because otherwise, like a broken record that keeps on playing, this could be one reel Nightmare that really never ends....
? No sense of direction: Seriously, Director Samuel Bayer has to take responsibility for this one. The story was already there, all he needed to do was to plan some new and interesting scares and kills. How is it possible that one could visualise a story actually worse than the original? And while it's fine to create a darker, more serious Freddy, what about giving this Freddy some meaning for being so? It's one thing trying to fill a big pair of boots, quite another to just make a simply bland and boring film.
Paranormal Activity: Truth or fiction? See it to believe it....
A couple plagued by mysterious hauntings in their comfortable two-storey home in San Diego, California, decide to record their experiences on a digital video camera.
Unlike most videos shot by paranormal investigators, their documentary effort actually does strike gold, revealing a whole plethora of creepy and unexplained happenings that occur even while the couple sleep.
Steven Spielberg apparently got spooked while watching the 'video recording' because his bedroom doors inexplicably locked by themselves minutes into the show, and he had to call a locksmith to get himself out.
If this is the first you have heard of Paranormal Activity, the documentary style horror film that has taken America by storm, then read no further, put everything down and go watch it - Paranormal Activity will freak you out.
Much of the action takes place in the couple's bedroom - but did they really have to leave the door open? Spooky....
Katie Featherston is the girlfriend haunted by a demonic presence since childhood. Micah Sloat plays the skeptical boyfriend.
Audiences being scared silly during a screening.
But if you have heard of it and know what it is, then there might be a problem.
Following on the documentary shooting style of such classics like Cannibal Holocaust and Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity thus suffers from the same problem that plagues such films - it is all FICTION.
But while Cannibal Holocaust and Blair Witch Project are genuinely frightening to watch, Paranormal Activity features more of the mundane lifestyles of the two lead characters, punctuated by a series of weird and unexplained occurrences that only slowly escalate to a chilling conclusion.
Needless to say, it is no Exorcist or Haunting in Connecticut (which is after all based on a true story).
You need to truly believe it is real. You need to recognize that a perfectly normal person who stands motionless in front of her bed for hours into the night is a genuinely creepy thing.
But if you do believe, or can make yourself believe - then there you have a winner.
Because Paranormal Activity is every paranormal investigator's dream, to actually record tangible supernatural events in a haunted house.
It is like seeing with your very own eyes the final conclusive evidence - that spooks indeed do exist.
It all boils down to how one views the film. Those built on a staple of slasher flicks and Asian horror may not be too thrilled with Paranormal Activity.
But credit where credit's due - rookie director Oren Peli has scored a home run on a measly shoestring budget of just USD15k, with the film breaking records as the most profitable independent film ever.
! Outstanding New Idea: A novel idea that has gripped nationwide attention; a film that is now the most profitable independent film ever - director Oren Peli has certainly hurled himself into the limelight with this low budget offering.
! Non Shaky Camera Work: After Blair Witch and Cloverfield, Moovy Revue is just thankful that the director figured out how to avoid the nausea inducing shaky scenes that have plagued similar documentary style films - by shooting most scenes on a standard tripod. Duh.
Query For:
? Being Fiction: It is a pity then for this non-fiction wannabe that there will always be those who will not be impressed by the understandable lack of pacing and the 'plodding' scares that cannot quite rival the normal fictional horror films - not every American haunting has to be an Amityville Horror here.
There are few certainties in life, death & taxes being the few.... Then there are MOVIES.
Life's big entertainment channel. We live by movies, we date with them, we talk about them, we dream about making movies, and we die with "Rosebud..." on our lips.
