Killers

June 23, 2010

The story of "Killers" is familiar rom-com material, with a twist of action. Jen (Katherine Heigl) is vacationing in the very scenic town of Nice with her straight-laced dad (Tom Selleck) and alcoholic mom (Catherine O'Hara). There she meets the suave Spencer (Ashton Kutcher). They fall in love and eventually get married. Little did Jen know though, that three years later, the ghosts of Spencer's old job will come and wreak havoc on their seemingly perfect suburban life.

This is the first movie of Katherine Heigl that I have seen. I know she is in TV's "Gray's Anatomy", but I do not watch that as well. I liked her very much as the geeky beauty Jen in "Killers". She is sexy, funny and bubbly. Ashton Kutcher could never really escape the dumb persona he has built in "That 80s Show" or in "Punk'd." He does try his best here to play an action hero, and I think he passes muster. I think the two of them do have some sort of goof-ball chemistry because of their likable personalities.

The execution of the script is okay. I sort of liked the outlandish plot points and the over-the top comedic violence. I am surprised to see a lot of harsh reviews on IMDB. Hey, I am sure you do not watch a film like "Killers" expecting a serious screenplay and award-winning acting. This film is lightweight, silly and adrenaline-driven for the most part, and I think it delivered well on its shallow premise and objectives.

Review of 2012

November 19, 2009

2012 is just barely 3 years away, and this movie reminds us that Mayan, Chinese and Biblical sources all are telling us that year would bring with it the end of days as we know it.

This movie "2012" is already the third disaster movie by director Ronald Emmerich, after "Independence Day" and "The Day After Tomorrow" (unless you also count "Godzilla" and "Eight Legged Freaks"). This is big stuff. It looks expensive from the trailers alone given the elaborate computer-generated imagery we see. 

Watching the film itself though is another matter. I do not really know how a film of this immense magnitude can give the feeling of being so shallow. There was a great potential for this movie to deliver a powerful message here. But unfortunately, we get a cartoon-like movie with the most corny and downright cheesy scenes and dialog.

Don't get me wrong, there are several edifying and unprecedented images like that of the White House being destroyed by an runaway aircraft carrier, or that of flooding in the Himalayas. But scenes like those when John Cusack was driving his limo through falling buildings from Pasadena to Sta. Monica Airport, or his getting out alive from a camper swallowed up by the gaping earth at Yellowstone are too ridiculously over-the-top to be any good. Definitely one close call too many.

As for the characters, they are too one-dimensional and too unbelievably super-human to care about. The wild character of Woody Harrelson was too nutty to be likable. In truth, I only liked the geologist Adrian Helmsley (played by Chiwetel Ejiofor), his Indian geologist friend and the family of the Tibetan monk. Amidst the chaos, they had scenes of genuine pathos which we can reflect on.