ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY (2016)

Genre: Science Fiction / Adventure
Running Length: 2:13
Cast: Felicity Jones, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn, Alan Tudyk, Donnie Yen, Wen Jiang, Forest Whitaker, Riz Ahmed, Mads Mikkelsen,
Director: Gareth Edwards
Screenplay: Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy from a story by John Knoll and Gary Whitta, based on characters created by George Lucas

ROGUE ONE is better than Force Awakens, not because the former is more superior but it's because the end product feels unrestrained. Probably the filmmakers do not feel overly pressurized to fit their story into the Skywalker saga. One do not really need to fully understand the universe that George Lucas has created in his trilogies to enjoy this movie.

For Star Wars fans, Rogue One is packed with easter eggs. Thankfully it wasn't distracting but more like a wink to its legion of followers. As for the narrative itself, it's a grittier fare than one would expect because this film has more "war" than "star" ie space opera. People die in Rogue One. Not just one but many.

That said, when the characters gets killed off, I didn't feel much for them, eventhough the movie took a good 50%-60% of its running length to establish its characters. Ok, I did feel a lump in my throat when one of them perished.

The 'return' of Darth Vader was triumphant. Eventhough Director Krennic is the chief villain in this film, it is Darth Vader that steals the show with the few scenes he is in. Talk about impact. As for the rest of the cast, Diego Luna's character is equally central as Felicity Jones'. And as for Donnie Yen, it's nice to see him finally getting the kind of recognition from the West he so deserves. Overall, the diverse cast is adequate.

The big standout for me was the special effects. It is very impressive especially the dogfights and war scenes. It wasn't a disorientating mess as viewers know who's good and bad. And thank God it's not a CGI fest aka screensaver, like the ones in Ep. I, II and III. And speaking of CGI, the recreation of Grand Moff Tarkin (once again portrayed by Peter Cushing, who passed away in 1994) using CGI was a distraction for me. It reminded me of Polar Express.    

In summary, Rogue One a good standalone movie and it presents a closure on why the Empire's ultimate planet killer weapon had such an easy-to-exploit flaw. And it serves well as a companion piece to the Star Wars anthology too.

Rating: 8.5/10

INFERNO (2016)

Genre: Thriller/Adventure

Running Length: 2:01

Cast: Tom Hanks, Felicity Jones, Sidse Babett Knudsen, Irrfan Khan, Omar Sy, Ben Foster, Ana Ularu

Director: Ron Howard

Screenplay: David Koepp, adapted from the novel by Dan Brown

INFERNO; how could so many well meaning and experienced talent (David Koepp who wrote Jurassic Park, The Hans Zimmer, The Ron Howard and The Tom Hanks) produced such a convoluted movie? Probably the source of the material is to be blamed. It seems to ring true that Dan Brown's novels offers his readers excitement and always something to learn but it just doesn't hold up well under scrutiny.  

So when it's adapted to the big screen, the plot holes and logic (or the lack of it) are amplified. And to be honest, right from the very first movie, the casting of Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon (the hero in Brown's books) was a big mistake. Hanks doesn't come across as charming or learned but instead, he comes off as your regular nice guy in a suit with a perpetual frown. Even after three movies, Hanks hasn't grown into Langdon's shoes.

As for Inferno's plot, a billionaire mad scientist with a cult following is trying to save the world from overpopulation by culling off 50% of its population. He believes by doing so, beauty will rise from the ashes just like how the Black Plague sparked the Renaissance. And so, he created an apocalyptic airborne virus that will wipe out a good portion of the population in no time. 

What's puzzling is instead of releasing it himself, he has left clues for his followers to find it and set it off. Yepp...And that's where our code breaker expert + history buff uncle comes in. Langdon's mission is to go on a scavenger hunt to locate the virus before our mad man's followers reach it first. His first clue is Botticelli's famed Map Of Hell painting, inspired by Dante's epic poem Inferno. And off he goes with Felicity Jones' character into a race against time + sight-seeing trip of sorts (Florence, Venice, Istanbul) by following the breadcrumbs.

To be fair, it has its fun moments and it has Irrfan Khan, who steals the show whenever he's on screen. I would suggest for you to read the book instead. At least, the book's resolution did not have a Hollywood ending like what they did to this movie. Or just re-watch Indiana Jones or even Nicholas Cage's National Treasure.  

Rating: 5.5/10

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (2015)

Genre: Drama
Running Length: 2:03
Cast: Eddy Redmayne, Felicity Jones, David Thewlis
Director: James Marsh
Screenplay: Anthony McCarten, based on "Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen" by Jane Hawking

There are many great performances this year nominated in the best actor category but none as uncanny as Eddie Redmayne's turn as Stephen Hawking in THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. When you see him on screen, you don't see Redmayne acting as Hawking but you actually see Stephen Hawking himself. His physical transformation is astonishing but more importantly, viewers will actually experience the slow degeneration (due to ALS) of the brilliant physicist's motor skills and emotional breakdown unfolding in front of our eyes. It's painful to watch at times. By the end of the film, Redmayne's acting is only limited to his face and eyebrows but yet we can still sense his tenacity to lead a normal life. He is deserving of Best Actor in this year's Oscars. Felicity Jones' turn as his first wife is equally convincing as in the beginning, she truly believes that love will tide them over but by the end, as a caregiver, she is forced to admit defeat. The narrative presented is pretty straightforward but I'm glad that the angle the filmmakers took; rather than concentrating on theoretical physics, it focuses more on the real-life challenges of a couple faces when one of the partner is stricken with physical illness; it forces the viewers to re-evaluate the "theory of love" - to be together in sickness and health.

Rating: 8/10