Zero Dark Thirty

A fantastic, relentlessly tense and sharp tour de force by Kathryn Bigelow. Now I can join in the crowd to say that she was clearly snubbed for the Oscars. This is a bloody brilliant film/historical drama that despite its 157mins showtime is tightly paced and keeps the tension taut throughout. We all know what happens at the end: Geronimo dies. But the how? Many people may not know the details, and this film is definitely not 100% accurate or factual, but the gist of it is presented so clearly that the audience is kept gripped and on their toes and at the edge of their trepidatious seats all through the finale. In this case, other than Bigelow who directed this with fluid ease and translated all that to the screen, the other big star is Jessica Chastain. Her Maya is astonishing to watch. She acts with her whole body and despite minimal dialogue, Chastain was still able to convey the emotions so clearly through her face, her eyes and her posture. She literally carries this film on her shoulders. Her transformation through the years is shown early in the film and one can immediately identify what a tremendously gifted actress Chastain is. And at her final scene, her face goes through a gamut of emotions and Bigelow wisely chose to quietly focused on her and leave us open to interpret. That, and another explosive scene opposite Kyle Chandler (his movie career is really burgeoning no? A possible new Bradley Cooper?) where she lambast him with not-so-veiled threats (and the after-effect scene too) has got to surely be on her Oscar reel. I think this year's Best Actress race is a fight between Emmanuelle Riva and Jessica Chastain (with Naomi Watts third and Jennifer Lawrence now a distant fourth). The supporting cast are mainly there for Chastain to act off, but Jason Clarke, Joel Edgerton, Jennifer Ehle and the aforementioned Chandler were all standouts in their own right (a bit surprised to see John Barrowman aka Captain Jack Harkness though). Mark Boal's script has its moments, but unfortunately, other than a straight forward chronological narrative, a few outstanding monologues, there is not much there in terms of originality (a very tough fight there with Michael Haneke's "Amour", Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" and the much hyped Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained"). Alexandre Desplat's score here is way better here than his Oscar-nominated one for the other historical drama "Argo" (of all Desplat's prolific output this season, I personally thought Argo's score was the worse of the lot). In this film, Bigelow has wisely chosen to downplay the score and use it more to underscore scenes rather than manipulating it for dramatic reasons or heightening the tension. In this way, I felt that the score was more organic to the film and more appropriate. In addition, it is also partly this choice that made Bigelow such a great (action) director: she choreograph her action scenes so well, that the anxiety feels natural and organic. Though the use of torture and violence is nakedly depicted, from a detached point of view, it is an historical dramatisation of the events and it made narrative sense. A very very brilliant film! Though one part of me just kept waiting for Claire Danes to pop up! (heh)

The Impossible

The real stars of this melodramatic tearjerker are Tom Holland and the emotionally manipulative score by Fernando Velázquez. Tom Holland (of "Billy Elliot the Musical" fame) , like his big screen counterpart Jamie Bell from "Billy Elliot", will go far. He is actually the emotional core of the whole show and he ably carried the weight of the movie on his young shoulders. Fascinating to watch on screen. Naomi Watts was outstanding as the matriarch of the family but her character was written too simply and flat. Although her portrayal was intense and authentic, and Watts sure as hell acted out of it, she was let down by the uncomplex characterisation. Nonetheless, she definitely deserves the accolades but as the final berth of this year's Best Actress Oscar race, I thought Marion Cotillard from "Rust and Bone" gave a more powerfully nuanced and subtle performance compared to Watts slightly more showy role. Ewan McGregor had a less showy role which he too carried off with panache, and he absolutely nailed his one big emotional cathartic scene. As said earlier, Velázquez score was key to tugging the heartstrings and milking the tears duct, without it, Juan Antonio Bayona's (of the brilliant "The Orphanage" fame) direction will just be dramatic without the mélos. This was a better depiction of the the 2004 Tsunami than Clint Eastwood's "Hereafter". The first 20-30 minutes were one of the most harrowing and frightening cinematic experiences (no thanks to Holland, Watts, Velázquez and Bayona). Which then brings us to the question: Is too soon still?

Cloud Atlas [IMAX]

Disclaimer: I read David Mitchell's sprawling epic about 4 months before watching the movie.

This is the Oscar-bait of the season that caught no fish. A 3-hour epic, and with due credit to the directors - The Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer - it never did feel like 3 hours even for someone who had read the book. The main reason is because of the many changes to the book that they have made which kept the story slightly fresher (I recommend reading this website: http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Biggest-Differences-Between-Cloud-Atlas-Book-Movie-33797.html). But like many movies these days that are based on books, the movies tend to be a bit more dumb down, with obvious themes and purposes explained outright to the audience. The audience, unlike the readers, seldom get the chance to ruminate and think about what they had just seen, or given a chance to interpret characters' actions, thoughts or even the author's as they deem fit. Instead, we are asked to think what the directors want us to think. Which can be annoying. Also, these movies tend to be less ambiguous and everything almost always get tied up in a nice knot at the end. For most parts, I do not have anything against the changes the directors have made to Mitchell's book, but I think the romance angles are forced a bit too hard into each storyline (but Robert Frobisher's was actually rather touching and appropriate) and the political background of neo-Seoul is too brief to really let the audience feel the need for a revolution. I applaud the use of the same actors repeatedly throughout the movie (although the use of Caucasians cosmetically-altered to appear "Asians" is rather offensive, and of all places to reflect they use Korea, where more stars there are now looking more Caucasians due to the advent of plastic surgery and aesthetic medicine). That gives the audience an added layer of interconnectiveness which underlies one of the main themes of the book. But, pity, none of the actors were outstandingly brilliant. Perhaps, the standouts were Ben Wishaw, Doona Bae and Jim Broadbent. The directing was quite seamless throughout all six stories and the editing was phenomenon to not make the stories confusing or messy. That bit was very well done, with the cuts and edits, interlocking all the stories. The score was very appropriate, and I truly want to get the "Cloud Atlas Sextet". I can easily watch this movie, or read the book again, but I suspect that some audience may find some difficulty in embracing this ambitious and sprawling movie because essentially it is just six short stories without any overarching plot. They are linked together by common themes, which despite the film-makers many attempts at jamming it down our throats, may still be missed by the viewer leaving them with a sense of loss and frustration. But if one can appreciate the ambition of the story teller then one will be well rewarded with a fascinating experience about human lives, the intertwine of fate and destiny, power and control, and (in this case) love. Although, I can see why it has not been loved by the Oscars, there is a lack of great acting, directing is not perfect, though the movie is coherent, it does not stand out, and it is only good because of Mitchell's original ideas. For once, I do recommend reading the book in conjunction with watching this movie for a more complex emotional journey. Like "Life of Pi", another rather unfilmable book has been filmed, but unlike "Life of Pi" in all its beauty, "Cloud Atlas" is a more emotionally satisfying movie. IMAX not necessary.

Mama

This movie only has two things going for it: Guillermo del Toro and Jessica Chastain (okie...and maybe a bit of Jaime Lannister aka Nikolaj Coster-Waldau). For the former, you can clearly see some of his signatures in the story telling especially with regards to the supernatural aspect; the latter, sadly, is not her best role to date. Sure, she's good but not really a stand out. I sense the studios are just really banking on those two names and Chastain's recent Oscar buzz to roll this movie out. There are some mediocre scares and one or two good ones, but other than a great introduction scene, the rest of the show was draggy. This is a run-of-the-mill storyline and if there is nothing standout from the acting nor the plot than what makes this different? It was good the villain was slowly introduced to us, and by showing glimpses of it throughout does help to tighten the tension. However, the plot was too long drawn, and this may be better as a short story/film rather than a long form cinematic experience. Plot holes are present, as is typical of most horror movies, but at least here was not so gaping. Although threads were picked up but never completed, which can be frustrating.

Seven Psychopaths

A very dark meta-within-a-meta comedy from Martin McDonagh who somehow always manages to bring out the best in Collin Farrell. Either that or Farrell is better when he's speaking Irish than American. Nonetheless, this is a smart intelligent movie that has four brilliant leads in Farrell (and his hypnotic eyebrows), Christopher Walken (this is deadpan, people), Woody Harrelson (almost a parody of his Natural Born Killers seld) and the always excellent, character actor Sam Rockwell (who is so dependent to play these off-kilter roles). Smart meta-digs and self-mocking irreverence throughout with laughters generously spread out. But definitely only for those who can appreciate a good dark comedy. Even the ending was a macabre genius. Brilliant brilliant script that was well acted and directed!

Dolcetto by Basilico

The pastry and light lunch arm of Basilico at the ground floor of Regent Singapore. Limited seats at the lobby space in front of the shop, airy, naturally lit (on a sunny day) and relaxed hotel lobby atmosphere. Not cheap, but not too ex, as expected of a 5-star hotel lobby cafe. The wagyu beef panini was good: juicy and tender beef in a nice, fresh ciabatta filled with fresh vegetables. The highlight were the desserts/pastries. The lemon tart was well made: tart filling with a crumbly crusts, may be better with a nice meringue cap; the ricotta and vanilla cheesecake was good too, rich, soft cake but kinda lacked the vanilla oomph. The almond cookies were really good with a raspberry filling. The expresso baccio was so-so, unremarkable and the pistachio pastry was not bad, but also not very memorable. They serve decent coffee and Italian retro sodas.

Verdict: Will come back for a chillax lunch/tea especially if I'm in the area.

Banshee

Pilot: Cinemax's latest offering by Executive Producers Alan Ball and Greg Yaitanes (amongst others) and created by Jonathan Tropper and David Schickler is an adrenaline-pumping, re-imagination of an old concept that has the potential to be an intriguing serialised crime drama. Based on the pilot, it could be the next anti-hero driven drama that these cable-TVs are currently so fond of ("Dexter", "Breaking Bad", etc). The prologue already established the notoriousness of lead Anthony Starr's character: Sheriff Lucas Hood/?unknown real name, but I doubt they can seriously keep up with the expensive CGI and action scenes here. Premise is effectively setup within this Pilot, supporting casts are quickly established: the sidekick, the ex/fellow con, the villains (2 of them here which is good), the potential love rival, the potential love interest, the paternity issues, the workplace conflict and the colourful tech-man (an Alan Ball signature a la True Blood's Lafayette. It will be interesting to see how this will develop. I like the idea of the 2 villains. One in town, played menacingly and depravedly by Ulrich Thomsen, and the overarching Big Bad, briefly glimpsed at the end as portrayed by Ben Cross. Will be keeping an eye on this one.

Episode 2, "The Rave": A decent second episode which as typical focused more on solidifying the characters rather than narrative/plot development. We see more glimpses of Hood being inherently a criminal shoehorned into a lawman (oh the irony!...I get it!!!), so perhaps one arc in this season would be his road to full on hero? Or is he going to remain an anti-hero? Carrie/Anne still does some secret training. Why? What is she waiting for? Rabbit? Speaking of whom, where is he this episode? Kai is still deliciously evil, but he is bordering on ridiculous. Although his relationship with Sugar is sorta interesting. The latter calls him by his first name rather than his last like all the other characters on the show. The daughter is boring. She is the typical cliche rebellious daughter who is actually not that bad; a lot like Dana from "Homeland". Who is Job? Why is he still on this show? What is his purpose other than throwing out sassy one-liners? At just 10 episodes, it may be quite easy to watch through. Low brain input entertainment.

Episode 3, "Meet The New Boss": A filler episode that re-iterates how the new Sheriff is unlike the old ones, and re-established the power dynamics in the town. The most interesting bit was the opening sequence with the reveal of Carrie's relationship with the "White Rabbit". Her motivations are the ones that are currently most interesting. No Job this episode, slightly missed for his comedic levity to break the seriousness. Otherwise a boring, violent episode.

Episode 4, "Half Deaf is Better Than All Dead": Good after-credits opening. Shows Lucas' vulnerability and his over-reliance on Carrie. But why is he still straddling a life of crime? Great action sequence and tension. Character development wise, Carrie is kind of taking a step back. Why must the girl always pine after the guy despite a period of token resistance? And Lucas is turning into too much of a douchebag to root for. He may be becoming too much of an anti-hero. The problem with this show is that the supporting characters are not exciting enough for us to root for them or keep us interested in the rest of the show. At least Job moving in may add some colour.