Mr Holmes

An intriguing, mysterious, little film led by a phenomenal Sir Ian McKellen with outstanding support by Larua Linney and newcomer Milo Parker. This film was more about exploring the (fictional) man behind the fictional detective rather than a crime-thriller/whodunit, however it is to director's Bill Condon's credit that he managed to structure the narrative as if it was.

Condon, after the successes of the Twilight saga, definitely must have some clout now to explore more indie exploits. And following Benedict Cumberbatch's rather exciting The Fifth Estate, Condon now gives us a more meditative biography of an equally intriguing person.

Together with screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher, Condon and him adapted Mitch Cullin's novel expertly. Weaving together a tight story about Sherlock Holmes in his twilight years - as a man riddled with a failing body and - most horrifically - a failing memory.

The narrative spanned over 30 years and in three locations, and was tightly framed and neatly paced, such that we never got lost following the story and the crime.

McKellan was brilliant. Suitably curmudgeon and convincingly doddering in his 90s, and bright-eyed and sharp in his 60s, McKellan conveyed the emotions and weighty expectations through subtle changes in his eyes and body language. He could literally conjure up the twinkle in his eyes!

Linney reunites with her Kinsey director and her character was an enigma, but she is one of the few actresses that could really stand her ground opposite the indomitable McKellen.

Parker as the young son of Linney's character, and the supposed protege of Holmes, will be a child-star to watch out for. Just like Tom Holland in The Impossible, hopefully good things will come to him in the future.

Cinematographer Tobias A. Schliessler beautifully captured the English countryside and the white cliffs of Dover, and Carter Burwell score was melancholic rich in brass and horns.

A wonderful film to watch and a well-spent 104 mins.

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation [IMAX]

Like almost any Tom Cruise movies these days, M:I-RN was an entertaining film and Tom Cruise a reliable entertainer. However, there was nothing really spectacular about director's Christopher McQuarrie entry to the franchise - not in terms of action, set-pieces, dialogue, chemistry or narrative. M:I-RN definitely paled in comparison to Ghost Protocol and failed to build up upon it.

The best parts of film were the rare comedic elements which were mainly courtesy of MVP Simon Pegg, with the occasional one-liners from MUP (most under-used player) Jeremy Renner and the patente wide/bugged-eye looks of Cruise.

Pegg and Cruise worked well together and their chemistry definitely made the First Act the most entertaining, of course also no thanks to Pegg's bantering. Even the big action sequence of Act One was the most exciting and riveting of the whole film.

And speaking of action sequences, the one in the prologue really served no purpose other than for Cruise's ego and marketing purpose. Which can be the same for most of the other action sequences throughout, and was partially the fault of McQuarrie. The way he shot and edited those sequences could have made it better and more exciting.

The run time itself of 131 minutes was too bloated. Some scenes/sequences could have been trimmed and tightened. The problem here was that the audience do not really care about what is happening on screen - we all know Cruise will survive, so there is no real danger per se. Therefore, in many of the action sequences, where there are prolonged dialogue-free periods, we just want things to speed up.

This was also contributed by the lack of chemistry between the cast and the lack of group dynamics. The latter of which was what made Ghost Protocol such a fun film.

Rebecca Ferguson played a strong female character - a rarity in a male-centric action movie - that mostly held her own against Cruise, however they lacked chemistry together and their scenes were equal parts painful to watch and laughably admirable.

Poor Renner was reduced to a bit player after his expanded role in Ghost Protocol. It was like the first Avengers all over again for him. Damn contractual agreements.

Ving Rhames is better in small doses.

Alec Baldwin was just being Alec Baldwin.

Simon McBurney stood out amongst all the others as the Chief of British Intelligence.

Sean Harris looked like a Mason Verger with a plastic surgeon. Terrifying, all-knowing, and singularly boring/one-dimensional.

It was fun to watch in IMAX, but none of the action sequences really made it that much more worth it to splurge on the format.

Looks like there will be sixth and seventh entry to this franchise, and hopefully it can reach the highs of Brad Bird's Ghost Protocol again!

La Tapería

Les Amis' newest mid-range restaurant is a tapas affair and one of the better ones in Singapore. Mind you, that although Les Amis is moving away from the fine-dining scene and trying to establish itself in the mid-range market, it still veered towards the high-end of mid-range.

That being said, the quality of food at La Tapería did impress. In particular if you consider how, in Singapore, tapas are usually over-priced ang moh dim sums. At least here, the price may generally be north of $10 but at least the quantity and quality mostly justifies it. Bearing in mind that you are also paying for ambiance and service.

So, let us talk about the food now.

Off the bat, $4 for 4 slices of baguettes may seem excessive, but it was a worthy investment as the bread could be used to wipe up all the sauces provided.

The prawns in sizzling olive oil and garlic with chili was fresh, (Gambas Al Ajillo) and the oil was delicious to eat with the above-mentioned bread.

The gaelic style octopus (Pulpo a la Gallega) was one of the disappointments. It was soft and tender but did not wow the taste buds. There was a distinct lack of taste that not even the chili powder could compensate. Although, again, the oil was delish!

The fried manchego with Spanish Iberian salami (Crujiente de Manchego y Salchichon) was a children's (and adult's) favourite. The salty tanginess of the salami complemented the aged chewy cheese, and the fried pastry skin added some crunch.

The two squid dishes were a delight. The crispy baby squid cooking in squid ink (Chipirones Fritos en su Tinta) was a well done calamari-dish and frying it with the squid ink gave just the right amount of saltiness to complement the squid (which went well with a dash of lemon and the garlic mayonaise). 

The squid wrapped with jamon iberico (Rollito de Jamon Relleno de Calamar) was one of the best dishes. The squid was fresh and simply boiled and lightly grilled with a thin piece of jamon iberico wrapped around it which infused the seafood with a salty meat crisp.

Then came the meat dishes.

The charcoal grilled iberian pork (Pasa Iberica a la Parrilla) was a piece of ultra-tender pork chop - which I have been told "did not taste like pork!" (which would be good for all those people who have an adversity towards the elusive "taste of pork"). However, having said that, without that "porky taste" there seemed to be something lacking in the overall experience of such a tender piece of meat.

The off-the-menu wagyu beef came in 3 size: 150g, 300g or 500g and was served with a sides of potatoes and greens. The beef was done medium to medium-rare, and was tender and flavourful with a rich smell of charcoal and salt on the outsides. But they were too generous with the sauce which over-powered the natural flavour of the beef (which in all honesty, did not really need to be a wagyu).

The suckling pig (Super-Conchinllo confit) was average. You get to choose which quarter-part of the pig you preferred and I had the belly. It was fatty, the skin was crisp (veering more towards fried rather than roasted), but the meat was on the dry side, and not roasted enough to fall off the bone smoothly. The peach sauce and caramelised onions complemented the pork but was too little.

Lastly, the lobster pallea (Paella de Bogavante). A delicious, albeit slightly expensive, lobster and rice dish. The lobster was generously proportioned but dwarfed the portion of the rice - which in this case, with all the other food we had ordered, was appropriate. The lobster was fresh and succulent, and the rice, fragrant with saffron, was well cooked in lobster-broth and one of the better seafood paellas in Singapore.

The wine list was mainly Spanish, and the dry and mineral, with a hint of sweet, 2013 Laxas, Albariño went very well the dishes after breathing for a bit. 

Desserts was the churros and the crema catalana. Both were adequate although the mango bits in the latter was interesting and made it less boring than just a plain creme brulee.

At just slightly above S$500 for everything above, this was a good children/infant-friendly place that would be great for big group of friends and/or family. Dinner for one, two or three may be slightly less worth it.

La Tapería 
http://www.lataperia.com.sg/

1 Scotts Road #02-10/11 Singapore 228208
Tel: 6737 8336, e-mail: lataperia@lesamis,com.sg

Opening Hours:
Lunch: 12pm to 3pm, Dinner: 6.30pm to 10pm

Southpaw

Antoine Fuqua's newest film was unabashedly cliche but it was more than just another boxing movie, or another hero-to-underdog-back-to-hero again movie, because of the emotionally resonant work of its main cast particularly Jake Gyllenhaal, Oona Laurence, Rachel McAdams and Forest Whitaker.

The narrative by writer Kurt Sutter was typical of many hero-reborn stories over the years, and some parts may be too heavy handed. However, Fuqua wisely kept the focus on Gyllenhaal and did not stray too much into the emotional quagmire that Sutter's script potentially had.

However, the rise and fall of this film rest solely on its cast. And Gyllenhaal was outstanding.

Following his Oscar-snubbed role on Nightcrawler, Gyllenhaal returns with another fully-committed role that, depending on how the year shapes up, may or may not see him in contention again. He really found the character and slipped into him totally. There was no vanity nor ego in his portrayal of the boxer, and as he experienced the losses and wins, the audience was able to connect and empathise.

McAdams played a pivotal role in the story and was the emotional anchor throughout. She and Gyllenhaal had great chemistry and she really showed her depth (together with the Season 2 of True Detective).

Whitaker takes on a supporting role here, but this man, as we know, is capable of so much more! And here, he and Gyllenhaal had a natural chemistry that made their on-screen mentor-student relationship believable.

The other real star of this film was young Oona Laurence. Yes, a child actor that was brilliant and absorbing (and not annoying). Laurence held her own against Gyllenhaal and will be a fine actress to keep an eye out for. If only there were more accomplished stage child actors for the big screen.

Lastly, the music was exceptional. A brilliant juxtapose between John Horner's classical strings and Eminem's heavy rapping, reflecting the story and Gyllenhaal's character's arc.

Irrational Man

Woody Allen's latest sees him using film to explore his own dark philosophies of life, and he does not even try to hide the blatant-ness of it. At least this time round, Emma Stone has better chemistry with Joaquin Phoenix than she had with Colin Firth in the lighter, more romantic Magic in the Moonlight (the irony!).

Using the classic Three Acts structure, Allen used it to explore his own believes in morality and amorality and his own existentialism crisis. However, it lacked grace and subtlety and courage, with Allen just dipping his toes - and occasionally the whole foot - into the subject matter.

The story itself was predictable and borderline indulgent and it really did take its time. There were no unexpected curveballs, so the process of getting to the end had to be interesting and riveting to sustain the (intelligent) audience's attention. Sadly it was not.

Not even the snazzy Jazzy soundtrack could help to distract much.

Phoenix was a great choice to play the lead. He is one of the better actors of his generation and always inhabit his characters with the deepest understanding and dedication. Here he is overweight (gosh, that paunch was distracting!) and slumped over in the First Act, Rougeishly handsome and straight-back in the Second, and a slow crumbling of the facade in the Third.

Stone on the other hand, replayed her wide-eyed Romantic ingenue, for which she does a great job. But opposite Phoenix with such dark material, she paled. She held her own much better in the rom-com with Firth. Her wide-eyes failed to convey the necessary emotions and complexity that her character needed. Perhaps it is time for Allen to look for another muse.

Whereas Parker Posey held her own against Phoenix. Her scenes with Phoenix were the highlights of the movie. Together they both felt natural, and Allen's dialogue felt less self-serving.  Posey was a delight to watch.

Phoenix and Posey would be the reasons to see this 90-odd minutes film that felt like 180.

Ant Man [IMAX/3D]

An enjoyable film and a decent addition to the ever expanding Marvel Cinematic Universe, with a charming turn by Paul Rudd and great use of 3D-effects, but marred by the ghost of Edgar Wright (and Joe Cornish) and a general uneven-ness in terms of tone and characters.

As an origin story, the basic structure was there. Director Peyton Reed brought us from Point A to B to C and D smoothly and there were enough humour within to make this a sort of Marvel's Ocean Eleven. Reed's action sequences were also entertaining enough although nothing too mind-blowing.

But the biggest problem was that Wright's fingerprints could still be seen through Reed's gloves and the glimpses of Wright's DNA leave Ant-Man wanting.

Wright and Cornish have a very particular style and it peeks out at times in certain sequences, but these moments never really got to shine and hence it ended up giving the film a certain sense of uneven-ness.

Furthermore, Marvel's insistence to tie up every movie so succinctly with the greater MCU made it even more uneven, with certain parts of the film feeling like they were haphazardly mashed-up to give a whole. As much as we loved to see Hayley Atwell, John Slattery and Anthony Mackie, their scenes really ought to feel more organic.

I have a feeling Ant-Man will tie in very nicely with MTvU.

Adam Mckay and Rudd contributed to the screenplay, and it was evident with many of Rudd's lines. However, most of the people he played opposite with could not parlay with him as effectively. The only true standout was Michael Peña who owned his role and had great comedic timing with Rudd.

Rudd was great as Scott Lang, although his backstory should have been more developed. But Rudd had the screen charm and that handsome-ish yet rouge-ish and boy-ish charisma to play a thief-turned-hero. He is likeable but yet serious. And of course he wrote his own lines and was able to deliver the one-liners as they should be. That's an advantage right there.

Michael Douglas as Hank Pym was a disappointment. Douglas had no connection with his character and as the dead-panned one opposite the goofball Rudd, Pym was just boring. He and Rudd had no chemistry.

Evangeline Lily and Rudd were not much better. I wonder how Wasp would be like if Joss Whedon had got his hands on her. Her character was just as one-dimensional and predictable and boring.

(Whedon and Wright and Cornish should do a film together!)

Corey Stoll is on a roll ever since his turn on House of Cards. but here he was just another cookie-cutter, one-dimensional Marvel villain. And not even a very convincing one at that. Marvel either needs to gives us more complex villains like Daredevil's Kingpin (although granted a series does allow more time for character development) or more hammy ones like Ultron.

The Captain America franchises work well because they do not usually have a villain per se.

Again, the music - by Christoph Beck - was another decent MCU score.

The mid-credits scene was kind of expected. The end-credits scene, however, makes me excited for Captain America: Civil War!

At the end of it, I wished we could have gotten Edgar Wright's vision instead of Marvel's.

Inside Out

This was possibly the best animation Pixar - or any other studios for that matter - has done in a long time (since WALL-E, in my opinion). It was insanely smart with so many layers that an adult can appreciate, yet so expertly geared towards the young. There was joy, sadness, drama, pathos, tears, lots of laughter and even fear and disgust. It really ran through the gamut of feelings, In short, Brilliant!

But before we talk more about Inside Out, some time should be spared for the animation short tagged in front of it. Lava is another triumph for Pixar. Like most of their shorts, the concept is simple, but what was different here was the simplicity in its expression of love. A simple Hawaiian song that in its 7 minutes run time managed to make us smile, sing along, felt sad, then hopeful and lastly happiness. It was a great foreshadowing to the main movie itself.

Now, the film itself. Inside Out is so simple in its premise: What's goes on inside someone's head? The execution itself is simply complex. There were so many ideas and concepts that Pete Docter and company touched on that could have been further explored. The mind is really such a complex system but kudos to Docter and Co. for finding a way to make it so accessible to the young minds out there. 

The story itself was also very simple. Imagine a Thelma & Louise in your head with two opposing characters. That was what this film was essentially about. A road trip for 2 gals and the interesting people and places that go to and meet along the way. 

One of the best thing about the movie was how it did not shy away from a difficult theme: emotions are crucial and they formed us for who we are, even negative emotions like sadness and anger are important to the development of our personality. Life is about being happy, but sometimes we need to embrace the duality of our emotions to reach that state.

There were so many moments in the film that I wished we could have spent more time to explore: Abstract Thinking, Imagination Land, The Subconscious, Memory Dump, the interactions of the emotions in different persons and why are Riley's emotions of both gender?

That is not to say that this film has no drawbacks, but bearing in mind that the target audience are a lot younger, we can give it a wider pass. Small plot contrivances are unavoidable. This film could have gone a lot darker and the adult/cynical side of me wished it had dipped more than just the little toe into it. Sadness had so much more potential to explore. Why "things" happen around her.

A road trip between Sadness and Fear would have been a dark, and interesting, journey to take.

Similarly, kudos to Amy Poehler and Phyillis Smith as Joy and Sadness. Their voice work really helped to bring alive the characters. Richard Kind was also outstanding as Bing Bong. The rest of the emotions: Mindy Kaling, Bill Hader and Lewis Black were great too and had their moments.

Michael Giacchino scored the film and such a step up from his previous two works for Jurassic World  and Tomorrowland. The main theme was simple yet elicited a certain child-like gaiety that resonated with core theme of the movie. 

There are so many potentials for sequels! Let's hope Disney/Pixar don't screw this up.