'The Conjuring 2' Review

The Conjuring 2 Review:

The Warrens Take On London

BY IAN TAN

France has the best poster

The first The Conjuring was a major success, not just critically and financially, but for studio released horror films in general. At a time where the only good horror flicks audiences could remember were the ones released decades ago, James Wan stepped into the picture and gave us the gleefully creepy Insidious and the memorable The Conjuring, which has now become an audience favourite and in my opinion redefined the horror blockbuster experience. With that being said, does Wan’s sequel hold up to his 2013 smash hit?

Yes, without a doubt.

The minute the film starts, Wan pulls you right into the film with a chillingly spooky opening sequence featuring paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren, who are once again played excellently by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga respectively. The two have great chemistry together and share a rather poignant romance in the film that’s as engaging as it is sweet. And the best part is that it never feels forced or shoehorned into the story; it actually grows very organically throughout the film.

 

Vera Farmiga has a problem with Patrick Wilson's sideburns

But Ed and Lorraine aren’t the only great characters in the film, as the Hodgsons – a British family who claims their house is haunted – are equally interesting characters that manage to solicit a good amount of sympathy from the audience. As is the norm now, Wan has a fantastic cast of child actors, all of whom act genuinely frightened by their haunted house situation. Madison Wolfe in particular is a standout, playing the Hodgson family member who is suspect of most of the eerie on goings in the film.

Of course, what’s a horror flick without scares, right? As per Wan’s trademark style, The Conjuring 2 is chock-full of very well crafted scares and thrills. I wouldn’t say he’s outdone himself though, as those familiar with his filmmaking style may well be able to tell how certain sequences will play out. While most of the scares in the film prove to be very effective (a sequence featuring the infamous Nun and a painting was edge-of-your-seat frightening) there are a couple that fall short, most of which involving a character called The Crooked Man. That character/entity just felt a little out-of-place to me, especially when he gets involved in a rather action-y sequence towards the end of the film.

 

Just a couple of beers before a paranormal investigation

That brings me to my other minor (read: very minor) gripe about The Conjuring 2. The budget for this film is double that of the first, and along with that comes a longer runtime that doesn’t quite justify itself (some scenes could have been paced better or even left out i.e. scenes with the Crooked Man). Additionally, a few scares here and there don’t hold up as well as some of Wan’s best scares from his Insidious films and the first Conjuring, probably due to the fact that they feel bigger (due to budget) and less intimate than the ones in his previous films.

 

Freddy?

Overall, The Conjuring 2 is a solid sequel to The Conjuring and proves that James Wan is still one of the best horror directors in Hollywood. His horror films all have a sense of fun that is made all the more enjoyable when watching them with a packed audience and a group of friends. The few bits of humour in the film work pretty well too and bring a good sense of levity to the film. He just strikes the balance between fun and scary so well, especially with this film. If the Conjuring films keep delivering the goods as they have so far, and if Wan’s on board to direct a third film in this franchise, sign me up. This could end up being a solid horror trilogy.

Score: 7.8 out of 10

'Warcraft' Review

Warcraft Review:

More Like No Craft

BY IAN TAN

When the poster looks better than the movie.

Warcraft brings director Duncan Jones (of Moon and Source Code fame – both terrific films) to the blockbuster scene. It’s always a risk to hire relatively small-time directors to direct a major 160 million dollar studio film. On one hand, they tend to know how to build characters and tell a good story. On the other, they may not deal too well with studio restrictions and a budget that’s over ten-times bigger than what they usually work with. In some cases, it works pretty well (see: James Wan’s Furious 7), and in others, not so much (see: Marc Webb’s The Amazing Spider-Man films). With that being said, how does Duncan Jones fare with Warcraft? Let’s just say he’s more Webb than he is Wan.

The plot is relatively simple – an orc and a human must join forces in order to put an end to an evil orc force that plans to destroy and colonize the human world. The former world is dying, and their invasion to the latter world will spell extinction for the humans. However, an orc by the name of Dorutan sees the evil behind his kind’s doings and aims to stop it before war breaks loose between the two races. That seems like an interesting plot to drive a fantasy action flick such as Warcraft, but the film unfortunately never lives up to its full potential.

 

Hoping the Director's Cut will be better like...

While Duncan Jones’ previous films followed a small few characters, Warcraft handles ten times that amount, and Jones doesn’t seem to have a good handle on it. There are characters that start out as promising, such as Durotan – who is played fantastically through motion-capture by Toby Kebbell – and Paula Patton’s Garona, but neither of their stories are fleshed out enough for us to truly be engaged in their characters. All other characters are simply bland or downright unmemorable. Travis Fimmel, who plays the main human character Lothar, is given a father-son story (him being the father) that’s supposed to be one of the more emotionally engaging story threads, but it completely falls flat due to poor and uncharismatic acting from both Fimmel and Burkely Duffield, who plays his son. The two human magicians in the film – played respectively by Ben Foster and Ben Schnetzer – are just miscast. Ben Foster looks like he’s trying to be a Zen-like cross between Gandalf/Dumbledore and comes off as pretentious while Khadgar (Schnetzer), who is meant to be the underdog-turned-hero/comic-relief struggles to maintain his American accent, is very unfunny and lacks screen presence.

Opening up the Tesseract

But where Jones fails in characters, he triumphs in visuals. The CGI for the orcs and both the human and orc realms are stunning and immersive. Close-ups of Durotan specifically look as realistic as a CGI character can get. The action is alright; nothing to really shout about and nothing we haven’t already seen in other fantasy-adventure films. Also, we never really get to see the orc-human team up that the film seems to build up, which is a letdown. And a side note about the villain – I’m not sure why but he looked like the kind of villain I’d expect to find in a Kung Fu Panda movie.

 

CGI doesn't get any real-er than this.

What really upsets me is that this film had so much potential. Warcraft has scenes that seem to reminisce the emotional heights of The Lord of the Rings films, but because there’s no real build-up to any one of those scenes, they all come off as oddly placed and wholly unemotional. The poor pacing and editing doesn’t help very much either. There is a great movie somewhere in here, but it never reveals itself. I sincerely hope the Director’s Cut fills in the holes this theatrical version has plenty of, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll get that really great film the theatrical cut struggles to be.

Score: 5.6 out of 10

'Captain America: Civil War' Review

Captain America: Civil War Review:

Rogers V Stark

BY IAN TAN

Cap's looking pretty calm...

Twelve movies in and Marvel Studios still haven’t lost their touch. It’s quite amazing that despite having a dozen films under their belt (thirteen including Civil War), none have been total failures. Some are definitely brighter spots than others, but for the most part, Marvel has succeeded in telling interconnected stories (more so than not) in epic and satisfying ways. And Captain America: Civil War is another awesome addition to the Marvel canon.

Civil War sets the Avengers in conflict with one another when the government bodies of the world decide that the collateral damage the Avengers have cost throughout their missions is too big an issue to go ignored. Hence, they provide Earth’s Mightiest Heroes with a solution in the form of the Sokovia Accords, which will place the Avengers under the watch and command of government authorities. While Tony Stark/Iron Man is all for it, Steve Rogers/Captain America is not so convinced.

Up top

Although Civil War can be seen as both an Age of Ultron and Captain America: The Winter Soldier sequel, the core story is still centered mostly on Cap/Steve Rogers, with the film’s central story being a direct continuation of The Winter Soldier’s. However, the writing, directing and the overall balance of story and characters in this film works so well that by the end of the film you’d feel as though you’ve also sat through Iron Man 4, Black Panther: Vengeance and The Even More Amazing Spider-Man. All this, plus a focused Captain America story and an Avengers sequel all in one movie – what more could we ask for?

The colours of America

The Russo brothers, who directed Captain America: The Winter Soldier and who will direct the Avengers: Infinity War movies, do a stellar job with Civil War. Everything from characters to action and motivations are all spectacularly handled with little compromise in any department of the film’s storytelling. Iron Man’s reasons for signing the Accords seem just as sound as Captain America’s reasons are for not signing it; Black Panther has his own emotional character arc in a movie that isn’t even his; the new Spider-Man gets an extremely crowd-pleasing introduction; the characters all have layered and personal reasons for the choices they make in the film; the stakes aren’t over the top but feel heavier than ever before because the heroes themselves are against one another, and the conflict feels real – Captain America: Civil War does it all with some of the best character moments ever to grace a Marvel film. Other supporting characters, aside from the ones previously mentioned, are given their own time to shine, Scarlet Witch and Vision especially. And although Ant-Man hasn’t very much screen time, the Russo brothers make up for that by using him in one of the film’s best and visually jaw-dropping action sequences. Hawkeye, however, didn’t really need to be in this movie, but Jermey Renner’s charm makes him a welcome addition to the fight. Chadwick Boseman and Tom Holland are fantastic as T’Challa/Black Panther and Peter Parker/Spider-Man respectively, and are great additions to the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU). The villain in Civil War – Helmut Zemo, played coldly by Daniel Brühl – also happens to be Marvel’s best villain (or perhaps I should say the smartest) since Loki, and his motivations feel real, human and understandable.

Black Panther never fails to nail his entrance

Action-wise, Civil War has plenty of super powered set pieces that are extremely well choreographed and executed. The airport battle between Team Iron Man and Team Cap present in the marketing of this film does not disappoint and sets a new standard of action for future Marvel entries. And by the final act of the film, Civil War also sets a new bar for emotionally charged, character-driven action that breaks the mold of Marvel’s usual reliance on spectacle-based action. The aforementioned airport scene was shot with IMAX cameras, and the scale of the action in that scene really benefits from the expanded screen image and size of an IMAX theatre. Unfortunately, a few action scenes prior to that – although spectacular – are shot largely with hand-held cameras and may be a little giddying for some, especially during the fast-paced opening sequence in Lagos.

 

Spider got your shield.

Overall, Captain America: Civil War is Marvel’s most engaging film to date, and is up there with the likes of X2, The Dark Knight, The Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy as one of my favourite superhero movies. Personalities and ideologies were challenged, every action piece had a clear motivation behind it, nearly every character was compelling and the action was exhilarating. It’s everything I wanted Batman V Superman to be and so, so much more.

'Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice' Review

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice Review:

The Red Capes Are Coming

BY IAN TAN

#TheBoxOfficeWillWin

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice has been one of the most hyped comic book movies ever, with the idea of pitting the Dark Knight and the Man of Steel against each other being the stuff of fanboy dreams. Unfortunately, the result is a mixed bag of a movie that lacks proper character development, a cohesive narrative structure and, most importantly, enjoyment.

The film starts out with the climactic battle from Man of Steel seen through the eyes of Bruce Wayne/Batman, who witnesses the sheer amount of destruction Superman and Zod cost the city of Metropolis and its helpless citizens. This kick-starts a frenzy of political and societal issues against Superman, who is deemed as more of a threat to the world than a saviour. Complicating things is Lex Luthor, who like Batman, wants to put an end to Superman for good. And then there’s Wonder Woman, who is a welcome addition to the film.

Pick-a-boo, Wonder Woman sees you

It sounds as if this film would be a great character study for both our titular heroes, given how different their world-views are, but it simply isn’t. Superman is hardly as engaging as he was in Man of Steel and Batman is a flat-out jerk. Clark Kent/Superman is given an interesting story here, having to deal with the scrutiny of the world while being the very person that does his best to protect it. However, Snyder struggles with humanizing the character enough and Henry Cavill’s performance is rather stiff at times.

Troubled Superman is troubled

As far as Bruce Wayne/Batman goes, he was one of most unlikable superheroes I have on screen to date. I don’t get the hype surrounding this version of Batman. He’s so brutal, unforgiving and arrogant to nearly everyone he interacts with and I found myself desperate to find things to like about him for reasons other than his suit and Batmobile. But to give praise where praise is needed, Ben Affleck played the part well and gave Bruce/Batman a good amount of gravitas. I just didn’t like the way Snyder envisioned the character. Wonder Woman on the other hand, was pretty great for the amount of screen-time she had. Gal Gadot really made the most out of her time on screen and I look forward to seeing more of her character in next year’s Wonder Woman. And Jesse Eisenberg … he was okay as Lex Luthor. It’s definitely a far cry from what we’re used to seeing in Lex Luthor but Eisenberg really nails the maniacal and diabolical sense of thinking the character needed for this film. One scene in particular made me want to punch the living daylights out of him, which is good; he made for an effective, if eccentric, villain.

I guess he lived long enough to see himself become the villain

In terms of performances, there’s not much to complain about in Batman V Superman. Script-wise, David S. Goyer and Chris Terrio seem to be heading down the right path by incorporating some interesting themes and intriguing character struggles into the film’s screenplay. However, the real fault with this film lies in Snyder’s weak storytelling capabilities and David Brenner’s scattershot editing. Snyder tends to stumble with his direction and focuses more on sequel-building than he does on character building, which is a shame considering that he is practically the Joss Whedon of the DC Extended Universe. His visual flair on the other hand, is spot-on as usual (the imagery and visual symbolisms are pretty fantastic), but it does take more priority over substance.

Mophead

In all honesty, I didn’t like this movie. I really thought I would but it was disappointing for the most part. Throughout the film, I struggled to find entertainment value but found very little. Even the moments that were meant to solicit dramatic tension and emotion never hit the notes they could have. Again, this is due to Snyder’s weakness in the storytelling department and in the film’s truncated editing. My favourite scene in the film was one that had to do with the setup for Justice League. It genuinely excited me for the future of the DC Extended Universe, probably because Hans Zimmer & Junkie XL's music won me over, but after giving it more thought, I wondered why I should even bother, because Zack Snyder will return to direct the Justice League films and there will just be more of this. And this I almost thoroughly disliked. I don’t know how much better the Ultimate 3-hour Edition on Blu-Ray will turn out, but as far as the theatrical release goes, this is quite a step below Man of Steel in my opinion, and I liked Man of Steel.

Oh, joy...

Knowing how to visually realize a world and creating strong characters are two different, but essential things to make the DC films as engaging as they should be, and if a director only knows how to master the former but lacks skill in the latter – as Snyder does – I can’t help but worry for the future of DC’s cinematic run. The Justice League films need a director who not only appreciates the world the characters live in, but one who knows how to develop them as nuanced and interesting characters, too. And Zack Snyder, unfortunately, just isn’t that director. Hopefully things will change.

Final Verdict

Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is:

Garbage

Wasted Potential

Not bad. Worth a watch

Pretty Darn Good

Near perfect. An Absolute Must-See