THE NEXT THREE DAYS (2010)

RATING: 2/5

On the surface, the trailers for director Paul Haggis' THE NEXT THREE DAYS looks like a thrill-a-minute, popcorn flick that offers nail-biting suspense and relentless excitement. But Paul Haggis's third feature here, following from his 2005's Oscar-winning racial drama CRASH and 2007's war drama IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH, is surprisingly a major step down for a highly-acclaimed filmmaker like him. Instead, THE NEXT THREE DAYS is a painfully slow-burning thriller that takes too much time in its melodramatic approach and scores pretty low in term of excitement normally expected for this kind of genre.

The story, which is actually a remake of the 2008's French thriller POUR ELLE, centers on John (Russell Crowe) and Laura Brennan (Elizabeth Banks), whose happy family life quickly falls apart in the blink of an eye when the police storm their house and arrest Laura for murder. Apparently Laura is charged for the brutal parking garage murder of her boss the same night before they have dinner together. Laura claims that she ran into somebody in the garage immediately after the crime and she heard a button pop off her jacket, which is a crucial evidence that could proves her innocence. However, no button is found and she is immediately found guilty of charge. John has been trying hard to file multiple appeals while struggling to raise their kid, six-year-old son Luke (Ty Simpkins). After he realizes that his lawyer unable to help him further, he becomes obsessed with finding a way of breaking Laura out of jail. So he meets up crime author and ex-convict, Damon Pennington (Liam Neeson) who used to stage his own jailbreak, for extensive advice. What follows next is an elaborate scheme John takes matter in his own hand to analyze and plan to set his wife free.

From the outlook of the story, the movie should have been entertaining that it's almost feel as if you are watching a big-screen version of TV's Prison Break. Too bad that's hardly a case since Haggis seems to be trying too hard to build up thick drama surrounding John's grief and struggle along the process he have to cope while his wife is in prison. Frankly, there's nothing wrong about slow build-up for the sake of developing the character further but the story is too labored until there are times the movie tends to grow silly and contrived. It's quite hard to swallow to see a mild-mannered school teacher like John manages to act and react like a pro within a short time of period once he's in the process of planning a daring escape to set his wife free.

Make no mistake, the cast, headlined by Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks, are actually good with their strong performances. Except that the fact their characters are mostly wasted by the weak and contrived story. If you still care enough, the real excitement doesn't begin until the final 30 minutes when John starts to set his wife free. The particular final third-act is tautly staged, that begins from a relentless foot chase at the hospital to the public area and subway train before ends up in a pulse-pounding car chase scene. The action set piece is no doubt expertly shot by Haggis and cinematographer Stephane Fontaine that gives the movie the much-needed urgency.

Too bad THE NEXT THREE DAYS remains a major disappointment for a high-profile movie that involves a caliber of talented people by the likes of Paul Haggis, Russell Crowe and Elizabeth Banks. The biggest question is, what is Paul Haggis thinking anyway?

READ MORE - THE NEXT THREE DAYS (2010)

UNSTOPPABLE (2010)

RATING: 2/5

Following from 2009's inferior remake of THE TAKING OF PELHAM 1 2 3, Tony Scott and Denzel Washington seems to continue their obsession over train-based action picture and this time the result is UNSTOPPABLE. You must be thinking a title like UNSTOPPABLE sounds like a pure popcorn fun best suited for summer movie release and the fact that the trailer looks comparatively like the 1994's genre-defining SPEED (where both movies shared almost the same identical premise, only with different setting and without a villain). Too bad what could have been a highly-entertaining, thrill-a-minute action movie turns out to be a painfully tedious ride and yet served another disappointment for both Tony Scott and Denzel Washington.

Inspired by a true event, the movie centers on a newbie train operator Will (Chris Pine) and seasoned veteran engineer Frank (Denzel Washington) discover that a runaway train carrying a load of dangerous chemicals is headed fast for Will's small Pennsylvania hometown, where his wife and young daughter live. When an attempted rescue from the air fails to rectify the situation and what's worse resulting the death of a train operator, Will and Frank decide to volunteer to save the day. With the outside help via radio communication from a railway controller named Connie (Rosario Dawson), they guide against each other to catch up with the runaway train as fast as they can. Along the process, they are facing obstacle against Galvin (Kevin Dunn), the head of the train company, who is more interested in saving the stock price than saving life.

Despite the promising setup, the movie fails to ignite the spark it supposed to be. Sure, cinematographer Ben Seresin and director Tony Scott tries hard to mimic their relentless camerawork by literally swooping non-stop at all possible angles on the speeding train with the aid of frantic editing. At first, it works well against the subject matter but it also doesn't take long before the gimmick wears off and everything starts to become tedious and repetitive. Not to mention the fact that Tony Scott's usual haywire over camera movements (particularly the ever-present circling-around-the-actor camerawork) is as annoying as ever it's almost a case of motion sickness. Technically, there are little creativity in term of crafting action set piece and suspense here other than watching a series of the same old lengthy wild chases that cut back and forth between a lengthy phone conversations in the railway control center with various groups of people, TV's Fox News coverage, and of course scene with Will and Frank.

In the meantime, Mark Bomback's script is awfully pedestrian with all the standard formula you've come to expect for this kind of genre, and the characters are strictly caricatures. Even the presence of Denzel Washington as the grizzled veteran is more of the same we've seen him in the past.

The only best thing comes close to redeem this otherwise tedious piece of work, is the climactic finale where Will and Frank attempt to prevent the speeding train from derailing off the sharp curve. Too bad the excitement happens too short and too fast.

READ MORE - UNSTOPPABLE (2010)

ONG BAK 3 (2010)

RATING: 2/5

After 2008's ONG BAK 2 is ended abruptly with an unexpected cliffhanger finale, ONG BAK 3 immediately picks up where the previous movie left off. The vengeful warrior Tien (Tony Jaa) is now held captive by his nemesis, the evil Lord Rajasena (Saranyu Wonggrajang), and ends up being punished brutally with all manner of tortures. Tien's body and mind is totally worn out, he becomes helpless and is about to face execution but unexpectedly saved by a king's messenger demanding him to be released at once. Tien is brought back to the village of Kana Khone, where Master Bua (Nirut Sirichanya) and childhood love Pim (Primrata Dechudom) tries their very best to recover Tien's mass injury. Tien is subsequently healed and begins to learn how to mediate while deepening his martial art skills via karma energy (in this case, the power of nature) and traditional Thai dance. In the meantime, Lord Rajasena is frequently haunted by vivid nightmares that caused him delusional and apparently he finds himself being cursed. Only the sinister Crow Ghost (Dan Chupong) claims he can break the curse but Lord Rajasena refuses his help and wants him dead instead. It seems that the Crow Ghost attempts to seize control of the kingdom from Lord Rajasena and eagerly awaited the return of Tien to fight against each other.

Plot-wise, there's no difference from Tony Jaa and Panna Rittikrai's screenplay we already previously seen in ONG BAK 2. In fact, ONG BAK 3 is more of the same except this time, the movie is lack of vigorous energy succeeded in the previous installment. Instead, the movie is surprisingly restrained with little action and spends more time focusing on the subject matter of Buddhist philosophy and particularly themes of karma. While the thematic approach is earnest, the movie feels more like a 90-minute filler than a cohesive whole.

Likewise, plot and characters doesn't really matter since viewers are more concerned of watching Tony Jaa engages in a series of bone-crunching fight sequences. Which is quite surprising as well, the action is less engaging and somewhat uninspired. The only best thing is the final confrontation between Tien and Crow Ghost, where Tien incorporates martial art skill with traditional Thai dance to defeat him. The particular fight scene is graceful, except that it's sadly too short and certainly not enough to satisfy action junkies out there.

ONG BAK 3 is an overall disappointment, and what's worse, Tony Jaa has made a shocking announcement that he's quitting showbiz to become a Buddhist monk. Whether his sudden departure is temporary or not, Tony Jaa will forever remembered as one of the best martial-art superstars in the movie industry.

READ MORE - ONG BAK 3 (2010)

ONG BAK 2 (2008)

RATING: 3/5

WITH 2003's ONG BAK and 2005's TOM YUM GOONG under his belt, Thai martial art sensation Tony Jaa returns with the long-awaited and much-anticipated ONG BAK 2. Originally billed as Jaa's directorial debut, the film ends up being partially helmed by one of his mentors, veteran stunt coordinator Panna Rittikrai taking over his leftover duties after Jaa walked off the set and disappeared from the production altogether. Whether Jaa is stressed out and whatnot is anybody's guess, but the film manages to be completed and released with great fanfare in its native country. However, despite carrying a title of ONG BAK 2, the film bares no connection whatsoever to Jaa's groundbreaking debut, ONG BAK, but merely appeared as namesake only.

Instead of urban setting Jaa has previously acted in two films, the film is set during the year of 1431 where the kingdom of Ayudhaya is expanding its empire across the nation. When royal army commander Lord Sihadecho (Santisuk Promsiri) and his wife Lady Plai (Pattama Panthongphetthai) are brutally murdered by the treacherous Lord Rajasena (Sarunyu Wongkrajang), their athletic teenage son, Tien (Natadanai Kongthong) manages to escape but ends up being captured by a bunch of sleazy slave traders who toss him in a crocodile pit to see whether he can survive or not. Luckily he is rescued by the Garuda Wing Cliff bandits, led by the bearded Chernang (Sorapong Chatree), who sensed Tien has a special quality he wants to take care of him like his own son. Over the years, Chernang trains him all kind of martial art techniques until Tien grows up (now played by Jaa) destined to become champion. Supervised by Chernang, Tien faced his ultimate final test to complete his martial-art training by walking the backs of stampeding elephants before making them kneel in respect, and then fighting fellow bandits with different fighting techniques, and succeeds admirably. Afterwards, he's out settling his old score by avenging against the slave traders before finally decides to avenge his parents' death.

Like his previous two films, ONG BAK 2 bares the same old routine plot that doesn't really shows much concern on narrative front. Still, Panna Rittikrai's screenplay is marginally better, if taking by comparison especially the film is ripe maturely with murky undertones.

But likewise, the film remains an ultimate showcase for Tony Jaa strutting his usual hard-hitting martial art style. Not only he uses his trademark Muay Thai, but also brandishes a variety of weapons as well as practices several martial art styles including paying tributes to Jackie Chan's "drunken fist" fight as well as 1970's Hong Kong chopsocky kungfu genre once dominated by the Shaw Brothers. The result is breathtaking, especially the final 20-minute, nonstop martial art showdown where the angered Jaa squaring off against a large number of heavily armed villains. At one creative standpoint, Jaa evokes Jackie Chan's improvised fighting style by using the elephant as prop (e.g. tasks) to defeat his enemies.

Despite all the good stuff, there's still this unshakable feeling that the film feels incomplete. The ending is especially anticlimactic as the film ends up abruptly with an open sequel that, truth to be said, Jaa and Rittikrai could have choose to wrap up the entire story with a longer running time. With Jaa already confirmed that ONG BAK 3 is fast-tracking for production by next year, one can only hope that the following sequel can wrap everything nicely.

READ MORE - ONG BAK 2 (2008)

COP OUT (2010)

RATING: 0.5/5

Dim-witted. No, make that beyond dim-witted. That's pretty much sum up for this awfully lame action comedy, COP OUT. It's also the movie where director Kevin Smith made his first major studio release that he didn't write the screenplay for, and he's truly embarrassed himself here. It's like as if he's totally sold off his soul for the sake of big fat paycheck (in which he himself claimed via Twitter that he took an 80-percent pay cut on this), simply made a crap and call it a day.

In the meantime, the movie tries hard to be both a tribute and a parody of the buddy-cop genre made popular by 48 HRS, BEVERLY HILLS COP and LETHAL WEAPON -- which is in turn a plot filled with sheer stupidity. The story goes like thjs: Odd-couple NYPD partners Jimmy (Bruce Willis) and Paul (Tracy Morgan) have been working together for nine years long. And their long-time partnership has quickly become a laughing stock when they botched up their assignment for catching a dangerous Latino gang member named Juan (Cory Fernandez). Not only that, they also get suspended without pay for 30 days. Because of their reckless behaviors, Jimmy is now having trouble trying to come up a lavish $48,000 worth of wedding ceremony for his daughter Ava (Michelle Trachtenberg). He doesn't want financial help from his ex-wife's wealthy new husband (Jason Lee) and he promises Ava to give the dream wedding she wants no matter what. So the only choice he's got is to sell off his precious Andy Rafko baseball card to earn enough money. Unfortunately he got unlucky when a pair of small-time crooks, lead by Dave (Seann William Scott) robs the baseball memorabilia store where Jimmy wants to sell off his card. Although Jimmy and Paul are not officially cops at the time being, that still doesn't stop them to pursue the stolen card back. However, they are chasing back more than just a stolen card -- which also include something about a missing Mercedes, and a Spanish-speaking beauty (Ana de la Reguera) and of course, getting themselves into big trouble with a notorious Latino gang, lead by Poh Boy (Guillermo Diaz). Oh, wait, there's further more -- various subplots involving Paul's beautiful wife, Debbie (Rashida Jones) who might be cheating on him with the neighbor; two pain-in-the-ass cops (Adam Brody, Kevin Pollak) and of course the antics of that small-time crook Dave who loves to piss people off. Bla bla bla...

No doubt that Mark Cullen and Robb Cullen's bloated screenplay is terribly sluggish, while the pace is lagging from the start. It's so obvious that the story here works more like a trashy collection of skits rather than a cohesive whole. What's even worst that the profanities-laden jokes are hardly funny at all.

And among the biggest blame of all, is Tracy Morgan himself. He's got to be the worst comedian I've ever seen in a long while. He really tries hard to be funny and charming at the same time, but he is so pathetic that his so-called antics about those involving "homage" and quoting popular movies are just plain boring. Speaking of boring, Bruce Willis is a snore. Not only he's embarrassed himself trying to be funny as well, his regular cop-with-an-attitude role is surprisingly lackluster.

In terms of action, Kevin Smith isn't particularly a technically-accomplished filmmaker who knows how to fire up at least an exciting set-piece. All those obligatory shootout and car chase are orchestrated in the utmost pedestrian way imaginable, and clearly he's making almost zero effort here.

What an embarrassing piece of trash.

READ MORE - COP OUT (2010)

SKYLINE (2010)

RATING: 2/5

Judging by the look of its trailer, SKYLINE appears like a big-budget alien-invasion extravaganza. But special-effects artists and brothers Colin and Greg Strause (2007's ALIEN VS. PREDATOR: REQUIEM) manage to self-finance their own movie here made independently for just $10 million. What's more, it's a movie that shot entirely on the new Red cameras with the Mysterium-X chip owned by the brothers themselves and it was almost entirely filmed at co-director Greg Strause's condo building in Marina Del Rey, CA. Frankly speaking, that is quite a remarkable achievement for a low-budget independent production. But it's rather a shame that the movie itself is a major disappointment in most departments.

The movie begins with twenty-somethings Jarrod (Eric Balfour) and Elaine (Scottie Thompson) arrive in downtown L.A. to attend a party hosted by Terry (Donald Faison), an old friend who has recently make a name himself in the film industry. But Elaine doesn't particularly enjoy Terry's party especially with those egoistic rich people all around. Not only that, she is actually pregnant and even after she breaks the news to Jarrod, he doesn't seems to be happy about it. Still their relationship problem is nothing compared to the full-scale alien invasion that comes out of nowhere the following morning. Beams of mysterious blue light are seen shooting down across the L.A. sky, and anyone who looks directly at it will get sucked up into giant alien spacecrafts. Within a matter of time, news from the television and internet are instantly malfunctioned and everyone start to grow panic.

While the special effects are half decent, the same cannot be said for Joshua Cordes and Liam O'Donnell's first-time screenplay. Like the Strause brothers, they also hailed from visual effects backgrounds and it's no surprise that their story is sketchy at best. The story is a tedious soap-opera type, while the characters are as flat as pancake. Performances are skimpy, in which they are nothing more than just a bunch of pretty faces with little credibility and the dialogues are awfully stilted. And despite the movie's supposedly claustrophobic setting at a condo building, the Strause brothers doesn't seem to know how to sustain the tension in consistent manner. More than often, the pacing is erratic and at times the action looks repetitive.

Still the best scene only comes in the all-hell-breaks-loose climactic finale, but too bad it's just too little and too late. If that's not insulting enough, the movie closes with an unnecessary open ending that is either make you go bug-eyed or feels cheesy about the sudden, out-of-nowhere concept (you just have to see it for yourself).

READ MORE - SKYLINE (2010)

THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010)

RATING: 1/5

Ever since his embarrassing fairy-tale effort of LADY IN THE WATER (2006), writer-director M. Night Shyamalan has never really recovered his career deficit. His next highly-anticipated movie, THE HAPPENING (2008) continues his downfall. And it's sad to say that his latest effort here, this time in the form of THE LAST AIRBENDER, cements his reputation as a box-office poison.

Based on the beloved Nickelodeon's TV animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender, the movie is about an alternate world which is populated by four factions: Fire, Ware, Air, and Earth. We learn that there are "benders" within each group that have the special ability to possess their respective element. At the beginning of the movie, brother and sister Sokka (Jackson Rathbone) and Katara (Nicola Peltz), the latter which is the last surviving waterbender, discover a boy named Aang (Noah Ringer) buried in the ice sphere. They have reason to believe that he many be the Avatar, an all-powerful "chosen one" with a special gift of airbending. They know that an Avatar is capable to combine all four elements to bend whichever power he wants, but Aang confesses he has hardly learn the trade ever since he escaped from his heavy responsibility. And now a young and scheming Prince Zuko (Dev Patel) of the Fire Nation is desperately in search to capture Aang at all cost as a means of claiming the throne.

No doubt the premise is highly conceptual and very fascinating, which is why the animated series have been phenomenally successful all this while. But that's hardly the case for this big-budget movie adaptation. M. Night Shyamalan seems to be clueless to make this into a captivating piece of work. Instead it's a confusing mess that is surprisingly lack of ambition and imagination. Make no mistake, the production design are a marvel to look at (shot on location in Greenland) and the visual effects, courtesy of Industrial Light and Magic are seamless (especially its eye-popping waterbending and firebending effects). Too bad first-rate technical alone is hardly matters when everything else are painfully tedious.

Shyamalan's adapted screenplay is totally botched up with way too much exposition-heavy dialogue and the pacing is erratic. It's also very obvious that he is lackluster when comes to handling an epic scope this large. He doesn't know how to elaborate the potentially interesting action set piece other than containing them into a few slow-motion act and some entertaining tai chi movements (which are already exhausted from the trailer itself). The cast are equally wasted, especially the terribly miscast performance of Noah Ringer as Aang who is also exceptionally wooden.

Shyamalan has originally planned to make this movie into a trilogy, but with THE LAST AIRBENDER itself has come off such disastrous result, it's hardly justified any reason for a sequel to come.

READ MORE - THE LAST AIRBENDER (2010)

MONSTERS (2010)

RATING: 2.5/5

Consumer-level camcorders (Sony EX3), a tiny budget of an estimated $15,000 and a crew consisting of only two people -- those are pretty much sum up for Gareth Edwards's feature-film debut, MONSTERS. For a genre movie about alien invasion, the movie is unbelievably stunning and as technically accomplished as those big studio productions that cost $100-million-plus.

The movie begins with a disclaimer that a NASA sample-collecting probe in search of alien life has crashed upon re-entry over Central America and thus infecting northern Mexico territories with giant roaming creatures. A photojournalist named Andrew Kaulder (Scoot McNairy) is eager to search outstanding shot that will win him a magazine cover but at the same time, he is also assigned to escort his boss' grown daughter, Samantha Wynden (Whitney Able), from Costa Rica back to the U.S. safely. At the beginning, these two strangers have their indifference but they slowly develop friendship for each other. Then it doesn't take long before they discover the trip is tougher than expected. This is especially after they fork out $5,000 worth of ticket price for the ferry ride back to the U.S. But under unexpected circumstances, they have somehow lost their passport and they now have to cough up $10,000 for their one and only option to travel across the "Infected Area" toward the American border. Both of them have little money left, so Samantha have no choice but to trade off with her engagement diamond ring. Soon they embark on an uncertain journey to the area across the troubled land.

Gareth Edwards, who also penned the screenplay, doesn't really offers anything new about alien invasion movie we have never seen before. It's pretty much the familiar terrain that comes before. But what makes this movie special is the intimacy Edwards have created a sense of realism that bonds the human connection rather than a primary visual showcase of special effects extravaganza. With only two primary cast, Scott McNairy and Whitney Able are natural in their acting performances. Their characters are unlike those we usually encounter in the like-minded genre -- less caricatured but more human.

Still this is a tour de force showcase for Edwards himself. He is technically a one-man show, who also pulls off cinematographer and special effects duty. On the visual front, he succeeded admirably. Not only the production design (shot on location in Mexico) which feels authentic and horrifying, the effects which he bring them from the destruction of the area to the conceptual design of the creatures (which is resemblance of an octopus) are close to photo realistic. These are even more impressive since they were all rendered on Edwards' own computers.

As impressive as they looks, MONSTERS remains a deeply flawed movie that is suffered from pacing issues. Even though it's clear that the movie isn't aimed for the more crowd-pleasing formula like CLOVERFIELD or DISTRICT 9, this decidedly low-key genre approach is lagging too much for its own good. Some scenes just linger long until they wear out of welcome, and Edwards seems to be too restraint when comes to tension buildup. Viewers might end up feeling tedious for the movie's lack of action especially towards the climactic finale.

MONSTERS might be far off from those aforementioned movies to certify this as genre masterpiece, but Gareth Edwards remain someone to look out for in the future.

READ MORE - MONSTERS (2010)

DREAM HOME (2010)

RATING: 3.5/5

Pang Ho-Cheung's first foray into slasher movie territory, DREAM HOME, is something of a different beast. Something that is out of the ordinary you normally expect from this kind of genre. The movie doesn't play like the Hollywood counterparts but rather a uniquely genre experiment that mixes with timely social issues and pitch-black comedy that usually associated with Pang Ho-Cheung's filmmaking style. The result is a hard-hitting, Category-III movie unlike anything you've seen in a long while -- DREAM HOME is a wet dream for both die-hard fans of the director's work and genre fans. Not that it's a perfect masterpiece but close enough to deserve a cult status.

Told in a non-linear fashion, the movie opens with a disclaimer showing statistics on the cost of buying a home in Hong Kong. It points out that since 1997, Hong Kong income has increased 1% while the cost of housing went up a whopping 15% in 2007 alone. Apartments as tiny as 600 square feet can fetch up to $300,000, and more for those with an ocean view. That is exactly what Sheung (Josie Ho) have been desperately wants, as she's been saving money very hard to own one unit at the prestigious, high-rise housing estate of No. 1 Victoria Bay. We begins with her killing spree, where her first victim being an unsuspecting security guard (Wong Ching) at the area. Then the movie jumps back and forth at a different time frame, showcasing fragmented look of Sheung's struggling life way back when she's just a kid. During her childhood past, little Sheung (Vivian Leung) used to live in a rundown public housing and watching as the government and property developers take the homes of adjoining neighbors. After she grows up, she vows to buy a unit at No. 1 Victoria Bay as her future home. But the reality is, she can't actually afford to live there. Even his fellow colleagues told her the same thing as well. Sheung's double-shift jobs (telemarketing and retail sales) are all earned with minimum wages. Her lousy affair with a married man, Siu To (Eason Chan) is nothing more meaningful than just a sex companion and he's a heartless being who won't lend her money to help with an operation for her sick father (Norman Tsui). Back at the killing spree, we see Sheung continues to kill more victims at the No. 1 Victoria Bay -- including a pregnant woman (Michelle Ye), her husband (Sinn Lap Man) and a Filipino maid (Dewi Ariyanti) before proceeds to the noisy upstairs neighbors, Cheung Jai (Derek Tsang) and On Jai (Lawrence Chou) as well as two mainland prostitutes (Song Xiao Cheng and Zhou Chu Chu). Obviously there is something that drives her so mad to commit such bloodbath.

I must admit at the beginning of the movie, it's quite frustrating to follow what's really going on between viewing at Sheung's miserable life and her ongoing killing spree. It's almost like a no-brainer at first, but those who is patience enough will gradually understands the whole scenario writer-director Pang Ho-Cheung trying to convey all along. This is where Pang Ho-Cheung succeeds the most as he paints an ironic, and often explicit look of how Sheung have to face a series of pressure-cooking scenarios as a typical Hong Kong resident. The movie would have been a certified masterpiece if Pang Ho-Cheung chooses to sustain that particular momentum.

And this is where Pang Ho-Cheung goes a little overboard with his genre experiment. Make no mistake, it's really a bold move to infuse his social commentary with a slasher underpinning. Speaker of slasher, he proves to be an efficient visual artist. Numerous creative kills and the violence are so unflinching they are certainly not for the squeamish (Note: the Hong Kong theatrical version has trimmed off nearly 30 seconds worth of explicit violence, especially involving scene with the pregnant woman and sliced-off genitalia), while the gore effects are shocking enough that pushes the limit of its Category-III rating. As impressive as they looks (more especially for genre fans), it's also questionable that Pang Ho-Cheung almost get too carried away with the slasher undertones. The rest of genre requirements you usually seen in Category-III movie are all here as well -- including copious amount of profanities and a particularly hard-hitting sex scene.

The cast, in the meantime, are equally good with Josie Ho steals the show as a struggling woman who tries hard to fulfill her dream. She is especially disturbing during the scene when she kills off her victims.

READ MORE - DREAM HOME (2010)

KILLERS (2010)

RATING: 2/5

From the look of the trailer and of course, the promotional poster itself, KILLERS is obviously an attempt to ape the success of action-romantic-comedy genre in the vein of TRUE LIES (1994) and MR. AND MRS. SMITH (2005). The good news is, this movie has its few charming moments with equally likable couples (Ashton Kutcher and Katherine Heigl) and some rousing action sequences. The bad news is, it's hardly as successful as two aforementioned movies and also sad to say that KILLERS is just too lightweight to raise above its mediocrity.

The story goes like this: Jen Kornfeldt (Heigl) is a born loser when comes to romance. She has just recently dumped by her previous boyfriend, and she is now traveling to Nice with her overly-protective parents -- pilot father (Tom Selleck) and boozy mother (Catherine O'Hara) -- in hope for having a good time. And good time she has, as in the matter of short time, she meets a charmingly handsome and well-built Spencer (Kutcher) during an awkward first encounter inside the elevator of a luxurious hotel. It doesn't take long before they quickly fall in love against each other. But there's something Jen doesn't know about Spencer's real occupation -- he is actually a professional killer and spy. However, Spencer decides to call it a quit once he met Jen and hopes to start a normal life. Three years later, they are living a perfect dream of a happily-married couples, complete with their respective jobs and a lovely house in the suburbs. Too bad Spencer's past is catching up upon him when he finds out there's a $20-million bounty on his head and a lot of people wants him dead. What's worse is that the killers out there are mostly his friends, neighbors or acquaintances. Nevertheless, Spencer have no choice but to come clean with Jen while facing another set of problem where Jen suspects she might be pregnant.

Director Robert Luketic is best known for making comedies (2001's LEGALLY BLONDE, 2005's MONSTER-IN-LAW), and it is no surprise that the comedic element here is amusing enough to keep the viewers occupied. In the meantime, the transition between comedy and action genre is smoothly-paced, and it's also quite a surprise that Luketic does know how to orchestrate some entertaining set pieces without the resort of shaky-cam and tight close-ups mostly plagued by like-minded directors.

The cast, aside from Kutcher and Heigl, the rest of the supporting cast are equally hilarious as well. If only the story itself could do better than just laying out in a light breeze -- Bob DeRosa, T.M. Griffin and Melissa Stack's screenplay is mostly uninspired that also quickly runs out of steam and the ending is particularly a huge letdown.

Strictly for the undemanding.

READ MORE - KILLERS (2010)

SAW V (2008)

RATING: 2/5

BELIEVE it or not, despite all the low-point and haphazard entry of SAW IV (2007), which happened to be the weakest series yet, manages to make enough money to warrant not one, but two further installments reportedly to be shot back-to-back! With SAW III (2006) already running out of fume and SAW IV only make things obviously worst, it is inevitable that the never-ending SAW franchise continues to be the "dead-on-arrival" for the fifth installment.

After the event of SAW IV which ends up a surprise twist of Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor) revealed as the third accomplice of the notorious Jigsaw murder games, he is now carrying the legacy of what the already-dead Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) has done before. All of Hoffman's FBI team are dead, while he's the only survivor who gets to escape scot-free and even make headline news for being the one who solved the Jigsaw murder case once and for all as well as manage to save a little girl in the process. But one thing he never anticipate that Agent Strahm (Scott Patterson) has somehow manage to survive the trap set for him. Hoffman knows he will be in danger unless he does something about it since Strahm is the only one who knows about Hoffman's secret. As the film progresses, the story weaves back and forth between past and present as Hoffman's past is revisited via flashbacks. It all begins with Hoffman's sister is brutally slained by a psycho killer who is later arrested and served imprisonment. But upon the killer's release, Hoffman wastes no time to execute him straight away with his grisly way of justice as he copycat the deadly method of Jigsaw game. The killer died terribly with a large pendulum crushed right into his stomach as he lied strapped down to a table. From there, Jigsaw knows about Hoffman and manages to convince him to join him as an accomplice, since both of them have the same deadly motivations to teach those undeserving people a deadly lesson about choosing between life and death. In the present, Hoffman has already set up a new game where five people, including real estate developer Brit (Julie Benz), are forced to be put through a series of diabolical tests in a chance of survival. And somehow these five people are connected in ways they do not yet know, and as usual, the rule of the game is that a single victim will be sacrificed until there is only one person left standing.

It's the same old story re-telling over and over again, and nothing really new is offered here. Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton's so-called complex storyline are so preoccupied with all the loose ends previously left hanging from SAW to SAW IV that whatever timeline the film offers here is no longer serves much as logical explanation.

This time, first-time director David Hackl, who was previously served as production designer for the middle three SAW films seems to be attempting more on developing characterizations than spending times trying to find new ways to scare the viewers with elaborate set of blood-and-gore. And speaking of gore, this installment is a total letdown. Sure, there are plenty of blood and gore but there are so unimaginative that neither are scary, disturbing nor feeling stomach-churning at all.

In the meantime, the cast are also forgettable. The less said about Tobin Bell's appearance as the now-pathetic Jigsaw the better, while the new villain in the form of Costas Mandylor doesn't look creepy enough to warrant him as such. As for the rest of the performances, all are just stock pile of cardboard cutouts.

And of course, no SAW films will ever be completed without the surprise twist in the end.... oh, wait! If you really buying the poster's tagline that proclaimed "You won't believe how it ends", I must say the filmmakers really outdoes themselves. Don't get me wrong, it's not because of good way to say that the twist is great but for the first time ever, the twist at the end of SAW V is hardly a "twist" at all.

And that obviously paved way for SAW VI... The biggest question now, when is the filmmakers going to nail the final coffin in this increasingly preposterous SAW franchise once and for all? Sigh.

READ MORE - SAW V (2008)

SAW IV (2007)

RATING: 1/5

OKAY, so both the notorious killer Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) and his equally sinister apprentice, Amanda (Shawnee Smith) are dead for good and everything is pretty much wrapped up in last year's SAW III. I mean, really, there's nothing left to tell the story to move the hugely profitable franchise forward but SAW III became a huge hit for the third time in the row and the filmmakers can't resist not to put the series to rest once and for all. That's right, the SAW franchise has now officially becomes the same old horror-movie franchise that won't stop coming into theaters until, at least, the series goes straight to DVD market. And it's a huge pity, because not surprisingly, SAW IV has easily turns out as the worst entry thus far (reportedly the filmmakers wanted to make the fifth and sixth installment back-to-back) and anyone expecting the same grisly torture-porn fun and mind-boggling twists will be sorely disappointed. The creative juice is entirely dry out right here.

Picking up where SAW III has left off, Jigsaw is dead, as the film opens with a stomach-churning autopsy sequence in which the coroner is carving his skull wide open as well as ripping off his flesh to reveal his inner stomach. Deep inside, he finds a cassette tape that Jigsaw managed to swallow before he was killed at the end of the third film. And right there during the autopsy stood remaining investigator of the gruesome case is Detective Hoffman (Costas Mandylor), who later played the tape where the recording indicating that Jigsaw has yet setting up another game of torture. As the film progresses, one of the last remaining investigators, the SWAT commander named Rigg is soon becomes the latest victim of Jigsaw's grisly game after he gets knocked out unconscious in his home by a sinister figure in a pig mask. When he wakes up in a bathtub and later discovers a trademark Jigsaw video proving that Detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg), who is previously locked up in a room at the end of SAW II (2005), and has been missing for the last six months isn't really dead yet. In fact, Jigsaw is given Rigg an exact 90 minutes to find not only Eric, who is hanged on the ceiling with his bare feet touching on a block of melting ice with his neck clamped tight by manacle, but also Hoffman, who is strapped to the chair next to him and that he will be electrocuted in the puddle of melted ice. Jigsaw knows Rigg inside out, particularly Rigg's passion of never-say-die attitude, and forced him to make tough "moral" choice that challenge his instinct to save as many innocent people as he can. Meanwhile, FBI special agents Strahm (Scott Patterson of TV's Gilmore Girls) and Perez (Athena Karkanis) discovers the remains of the serial-killer expert Kerry (Dina Meyer), who had her rib cage torn wide open midway through SAW III, and comes to a conclusion that Jigsaw might had a third accomplice assisting him. It's certainly makes sense since Jigsaw was too weak, given to his cancer-stricken condition, and his sidekick, Amanda was too small to lift up Kerry up into the elaborate contraption that killed her in the first place. So they brought in Jigsaw's ex-wife, Jill (Betsy Russell) for questioning and here, we are treated to a constant flashbacks-within-flashbacks of how the once-normal John Kramer slowly turns into Jigsaw.

A word of warning, though: Those who never watched the previous three installment will have their head scratched trying to make sense what's going on here because SAW IV revisited many parts of what has gone before and elaborating them for more. Though credits should be given to writers Marcus Dunstan and Patrick Melton, who has no doubt trying very hard to come up such a complicated storyline, they are obviously making the colossal mistake: Who really wants to watch the same thing over and over again where the previous agenda has already resolved in the first place? To make things worst, they goes several steps backward by providing an extended backstory of how John Kramer becomes Jigsaw. From here, it is so downright pathetic that we are forced to swallow the fact Jigsaw is actually a "sympathetic" figure who really doesn't wants to become the heartless person he's not meant to be. Apparently after he discovers his then-pregnant wife suffers internal bleeding due to a crack addict breaks into her clinic, he finds the society is very cruel and he came to a conclusion that those who don't appreciate their own life will be teach a grisly lesson.

Boo-hoo! There are just too many flashbacks going back and forth, and those who is hardly paying attention will be ultimately lost. Frankly, it's all entirely needless with just too many character over-cramming one plot after another you'll have trouble trying to figure who anybody is that can fit as least two films.

If that's not insulting enough, director Darren Lynn Bousman has obviously losing his creative touch to come up any sense of grisly fun of the torture sequences. Despite all the goriness, it's hardly shocking anymore. Then there's the annoying fact the film never learned and yet continues to exaggerated the same old mistake: it's more frenetically cut than ever before, with frequent jump cut that seems like a cut-and-paste rushed job, while it's also so dimly lit you hardly to tell which is which.

The elaborate cast, in the meantime, are greatly reduced to such forgettable characters that we are barely register to their action.

But none comes worst than Tobin Bell himself, who is plain creepy in the previous three SAW series. Here, he's a pathetic bore and also no longer as scary as before. Does the filmmakers never ever learned the first rule of the thumb on making a great horror film is not to reveal so much of the killer's identity?

And oh yeah, the infamous mind-boggling twist remains in place here: You just need a wide suspension of disbelief to accept the final surprise of who turns out to be the third accomplice at the end of the film, which paves way for further sequel.

READ MORE - SAW IV (2007)

SAW III (2006)

RATING: 2.5/5

THE first two SAW installment, released back-to-back within a year gap in 2004 and 2005, the filmmakers has finally made a smart move to close the chapter once and for all in SAW III before it started to get stale. Too bad though, that those studio executives in Lions Gate officially announced that a fourth installment will be on the way next year, should this $10 million budget film opens very well in the box-office. I mean, really, how far can one go in the creative process? Unfortunately, SAW III fails to rise above the material previously introduced so well in SAW before improving well in a better sequel. All the gruesome exercise in nihilism and in-your-face gore are intact, and while SAW II director Darren Lynn Bousman has somehow brilliantly transcended the previous two's premise centered mostly on police procedural subplots and a group of survivors stuck in twisted game of survival, in favor for character-driven approach, is a taut move, the film is surprisingly more preachy than it supposed to be.

Continued from the previous installment, lead police investigator Kerry (Dina Meyer) still on the verge to apprehend the notorious serial killer Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) who appears to have struck again. The latest one is being a helpless victim who was challenged to rip a dozen pieces of metal connected to chains from his bleeding flesh before a bomb detonated. After most of her previous police partners died subsequently in the first two films, Kerry suffered the same fate in the end. But it's not over yet. Enter depressed Dr. Lynn Denlon (Bahar Soomekh) and estranged father Jeff (Angus Macfadyen), who has nothing in mind anything but vengeance on the driver who ran down his son. Lynn is soon finds herself kidnapped by Jigsaw's apprentice, Amanda (Shawnee Smith), and come face-to-face with Jigsaw, who's near death from a brain tumor. Amanda strapped Lynn with a collar that will detonate if Jigsaw's vital signs flatlined and in order to stay alive, Lynn must perform brain surgery under pressure. Jeff, in the meantime, is forced to negotiate a series of life-or-death situations that he gets to choose whether to forgive those involved in his child's death or watch them died horribly.

On the basis, Leigh Whannell's screenplay is challenging as he pushes the boundaries of not repeating the same old tricks the previous two films has already exhausted by developing deep psychological struggle between Jigsaw, Lynn and Amanda, as well as Jeff's terrible ordeal. The bright side is that the film's unexpected focus towards characters development is a welcome change.

Too bad the same cannot be said with its obviously waning gore approach, in which no longer as sickeningly playful as the previous two depicted successfully. More flaws followed, especially director Darren Lynn Bousman doesn't seem to learn a bit towards the notoriously annoying rapid-fire edit and flashy cuts often crippled the tension of the film and guess what, it gets worse here. The story is also tends to be repetitive to the point of redundancy it feels heavy-handed where motives are somehow overexplained of what happened in the previous two films that seriously doesn't need to.

Still it was the engaging cast that sustained the film from being a near disaster. By now, Tobin Bell is pretty much at ease portraying a chilling serial killer figure Jigsaw, while Shawnee Smith's character is improved greatly into a complex role where she is confused about her purpose in life and unable to accept the fact that she begins to realize that she's no longer much of a valuable asset like she used to. As Dr. Lynn, Bahar Soomekh is equally compelling in her sympathetic performance, while Angus Macfadyen is similarly intense as the pained Jeff.

Despite its uneven result, SAW III remains a grueling watch of a horror film. Now I must wonder how the filmmakers are able to come up a whole new idea in the unnecessary SAW IV since everything here are neatly tangled together.

READ MORE - SAW III (2006)

SAW II (2005)

RATING: 4/5

ONE would easily figured that in a typical of horror film franchise, once the original works out its ingenious formula very well, all filmmakers need to do is to duplicate the same thing again, making them bigger and gorier that they guaranteed a sequel will cash in easy box-office draw -- but as you know, most of them tends to fall apart. Which is why it's almost led me to believe that SAW II would probably falls to the similar victim. For one thing, the sequel is rushed into production way too fast because the original indie-hit SAW was only released exactly a year ago. But surprisingly, SAW II is a kind of rare sequel that manages to improve upon its successful predecessor and takes the wicked formula into a whole new game of twisted macabre of life-and-death situations.

The opening scene is already a grisly knockout: Michael (Noam Jenkins), a police informant, finds himself waking up in an empty room with his head stuck in a venus flytrap contraption like two halves of a spiked, spring-loaded walnut locked around his neck. On a closed-circuit TV, a puppet-man explains the rule of the game: In about sixty seconds the walnut will snap shut and smashed Michael's skull unless he can unlock the contraption. But the key happens to be surgically implanted behind his right eye and in order to survive, he has no choice but to cut his own eyeball out to reach for the key, where the tormentor has provided a scalpel and a mirror before it's too late. Of course, one should already assume that Michael's a dead man. Enter burned-out detective Eric Matthews (Donnie Wahlberg) who had enough with his troubled son, Daniel (Erik Knudsen) and they don't get along very well. Cut to the scene where a serial-killer expert Kerry (Dina Meyer, reprising her role from the original) calls upon Matthews to the crime scene where Michael's body was found in a room. Kerry knows the very moment she sees the irregular patch of skin missing from the victim's shoulder, and it matches exactly the work of the notorious Jigsaw, the moralizing sadistic tormentor who turned torture into a sick game in the original. And this time, Jigsaw's latest target is Michael's contact on the police force -- Eric Matthews. Matthews is later taking the bait and tracks Jigsaw to his hideout in an abandoned steel factory called Wilson Steel. Matthews, Kerry and a whole bunch of SWAT teams burst into the factory and found a wheelchair-bound cancer patient, Jigsaw (Tobin Bell) sitting there. Though Jigsaw is apprehended, it's not over yet as he has already devised an especially evil puzzle for Matthews to solve: On a series of TV monitors, Matthews can see his son, Daniel and seven other strangers trapped inside a building at an undisclosed location, where they're slowly being poisoned by a nerve agent leaked through the building's vents clogged inside their bodies. And they'll be all dead in exactly two hours' time. Their only hope to survive is to play along Jigsaw's deadly games, where a tape recording offers each of them important clues about how they can save themselves but the doors are booby-trapped and the rooms filled with sick games they are forced to participate. It's race against time as Matthews must sort out the problem against Jigsaw before they're all dead.

For one, the sequel owes greatly to the more inventive CUBE (1998) and like the original, it remains indebted to Dario Argento's macabre style. Still, SAW II succeed admirably as a no-holds-barred horror film that is definitely not for the weak stomachs. The sequel offers the same extreme gore and hardcore violence, while not to mention a couple of inventive torture-set made horrifyingly imaginable inside the writers's sick mind. And this time, original director James Wan only returned as one of the executive producers while landed newcomer Darren Lynn Bousman to direct and co-write as well. Like Wan, Darren knows his way how to deliver a series of reasonably clever and horrific set pieces.

What really improves here is the film has polished its previous mistake and make things all the more engaging. The characters are further better-acted and each of them are reasonably credible. Among them is Donnie Wahlberg, who is compelling as a stressed-out detective so depressed to get his son back. Shawnee Smith, who plays a brief victim part in the original, strongly reprising her role as Amanda and her character is given a larger scope while Tobin Bell makes a creepy appearance as Jigsaw, a calm and collected demeanor that he wouldn't panic a bit even though he's already captured by the police. In this sequel we also learns more about Jigsaw how come he's so hell-bent on torturing his victims, thus delving the film a deeper subtext of his gruesome wrongdoings.

Still, it's not without a few share of problems: SAW II retains the same annoying visual distraction of the frantic MTV-ish cut and flashy editing that should have been downplayed already, while given the CUBE-like gimmick, the filmmakers doesn't seem to make use of its many individual trap situations in an elaborate manner.

Then again, director Darren Lynn Bousman seals his sequel with another clever twist of fate that builds up in a wicked conclusion where everything happens is eventually comes into full circle that related with the original SAW, which of course leads to an inevitable SAW III.

Oh, I can't wait for the next one.

READ MORE - SAW II (2005)

SAW (2004)

RATING: 4/5

ONE dirty bathroom, two men, a dead body and a filthy toilet. What an intriguing premise to start off something out of ordinary. For bone-chilling effect, this Halloween weekend doesn't any frightening than watching SAW, an impressive debut for both Australian director James Wan and his fellow screenwriter Leigh Whannell.

The film opens with two male strangers, one is middle-aged Dr. Lawrence Gordon (Cary Elwes) and another one is annoying slacker Adam (Leigh Whannell), awake to find themselves at opposite ends of a large, dirty bathroom. Neither remembers how he got there in the first place and each is chained by his ankle to a pipe. Not only that, there is a man's corpse lies on the floor leaking a pool of blood with his both hands holding a tape recorder and a gun respectively. It's not long before they are soon discover that each of them has a personal message on the tape from a serial killer nicknamed "Jigsaw", who promises that unless one kills the other, both will die and they have exactly six hours long before the final countdown -- along with the wall clock ticking for its time. So they start looking around and soon realized that there are various objects and cryptic message actually concealed around the room, starting with a pair of hacksaws that won't cut metal but could cut through flesh and bone, which is of course isn't a good idea after all to get out of the room. As they are desperately trying to figure out to escape, Lawrence seems to have an idea who is the mysterious serial killer nicknamed "Jigsaw". As the flashback unwinds, we see Detective Tapp (Danny Glover) and his partner, Detective Steven Sing (Ken Leung) are hot on the trail to investigate a number of grisly murder that could have been linked to one serial killer and the first suspect happens to be Lawrence.

A word of advice before viewing: it's best not to think too much logic and leave plenty of room for suspension of disbelief because SAW is the kind of super-smart psychological horror that defies most of the common sense. While most of the similar kind of genre film often fails to intrigue, this film is really packed with a big wallop and had me squirmed once in a while.

The opening scene itself is a true knockout, as director James Wan created a certain measure of sheer, claustrophobic suspense that he's simply grab the viewers by the throat and lure them for a sick, psychotic ride that tapped into the realm of madness. Wan also make use for the hard R-rating (originally conceived as NC-17 -- let's hope we can have the unrated version in the DVD release) and as expected, the film offers enough bucket of blood and hardcore violence that is certainly not for the weak stomach. Such gruesome and frightening scene like the one involving junkie Amanda (Shawnee Smith), forcing to decide whether she'd rather dig a key out of a living man's stomach with a knife already being prepared or wait for the spring-loaded contraption locked onto her head to rip off her lower jaw is nevertheless terrifying or the scene (warning, spoiler alert!) -- where Lawrence risks himself for the sake to save his family by hacking the saw through his ankle; the look of his pure agony and the sight of his desperation to hack himself free had me squirmed big time.

Though the film borrows largely from SE7EN (1995), Wan and his screenwriter Whannell still able a twisted, squirm-inducingly nasty piece of work in which they also pay gruesome homage to Euro-horror of the '70s, evidently on Dario Argentio's FOUR FLIES ON GREY VELVET (1972) and DEEP RED (1975), some creepy inspiration from Asian horror genre as well as grinding the gritty David Fincher-like darkly stylish vibe, all thrown into good measure. Whannell's script is gamely playful, complete with a sick twist that leave you spellbound (though the very ending doesn't make much sense) -- think the last-minute surprise as in THE USUAL SUSPECT (1995) and provides tight characterization, particularly anticipating the two nervous strangers, Lawrence and Adam trying to stay alive.

While watching Cary Elwes in a dramatic role seems to be at times hard to swallow (who can blame anyone since he's mostly into comedy element?) and frankly, he's quite make a convincing cut as a desperate figure trying to get out alive. Too bad he tends to get overacted, mainly the way he cried and freaked out in certain scene he seems to be laughable. Whannell, who acted for the first time as with his first-time writing debut, is quite competent, though he can a bit overwhelming and at times stiff while it's good to see Danny Glover back into action.

Despite the film's dramatic scarefest, Wan tends to get a little too overwhelming the way he directs certain scenes -- too MTV-ish for some taste and the swirling 360-degree camera going round and round in such rapid motion could be a splitting headache. All in all, it's kudos once again to the bravado of Lions Gate, who keeps (especially) horror fans happy with their "ballsy" release that includes HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES, CABIN FEVER (both released in 2003) and now this. And like director Eli Roth in CABIN FEVER, James Wan is definitely a genre filmmaker to watch for.

READ MORE - SAW (2004)