Written by Sarhan "Tsar" Rashid

I've been long wanting to share my thoughts on the "Watchmen" adaptation heading to your favourite cinema house next year [9th of March 2009, stateside]. With news that the trailer will be attached to "The Dark Knight" it's the ideal time to get the word out on what could likely be a monumental motion picture especially given the original source material.

Directing readers to the Wiki entree would be easy but I doubt many could endure toiling through it. The landmark comic book series first hit newsstands in the late 80's and soon garnered much acclaim from both comic book readers as well as high brow elitists who had long shunned the funny books.

Writer Alan Moore's take on the superhero genre took a more realistic slant focusing on various social, personal and even political judgement calls made by the characters as the face uncertain times and an possible annihalation of the human populace. If that sounds vaguely familiar it probably is. The first season of tv's "Heroes" blatantly stole plot elements from this book.

Structurally it steers away from typical trappings of the genre. It isn't hard to see then why many attribute it to reviving the dying format though just as many may single it out for making it hip for comic book writers to bury the escapist fare under heaps of far too much brooding, darkness and emo-cool inner turmoil superheroes grow through these days.

It works wonderfully as a study of morality, exploring the nature of humans to depend on authority figures to lead and protect while diligently serving and providing for them while providing readers with a (hypothetical) study of the hero psyche. Above all it served its primary purpose - that of being an exciting comic book. Its rich characterisation and dense storyline lead me to doubt that any creative team would be able to successfully translate it into a two hour ++ movie without losing its core context in favour of mainstream appeal. A big budget mini-series on television would be far more fetching I thought. Even after Zack Snyder was announced to helm this massive feature I had my doubts. Frank Miller's books have always been written and framed to ideally permitting a direct move to the moving pictures. So he didn't immediately get an immediate pass for his effort on "300".

"Watchmen" is a whole other juggernaut but if early word of mouth from online columnist is not hyperbole then we may be about to witness a movie that will do for comic books what "Lord of The Rings" did for the fantasy novels. For now lets all bask in the glory of the trailer before another mammoth comic book feature.

Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull

Director: Steven Spielberg

Writters: George Lucas & Jeff Nathanson (Story), David Koepp (Screenplay)

Starring: Harrison Ford, Karen Allen, Cate Blanchett, Ray Winstone, Shia LaBeouf, John Hurt

Reviewed By Sarhan "Tsar" Rashid

"Fool me once, shame on you. If fooled, you can't get fooled again."

~ George W. Bush

The return of a childhood hero always overwhelms me with nostalgia. The euphoria results in blatantly biased adulation. A mark of true devotion perhaps but also a deep seethed weekness in a wannabe critic. The dizzying number of familiar characters returning to the big screen has hardened me to.

Having been burnt one to many times in the past I took it upon myself to approach this review from as neutral an angle as I possibly could.

With that said I'm sure fans of the series will be happy to learn atleast this viewer/fan/critic (not necessarily in that order) with this action-adventure. Though not so much as an Indiana Jones action-adventure.

With pulsating action and lighting fast pacing I couldn't help but be swept away on the adventure. The brisk progress in the story and quick introduction of old and new characters only aids the wafer-thin plot from sustaining the viewers interest. I'm not complaining too much though. Plots have never been a strong point of this series.

What sets this series apart from the National Treasures and Mummies has always been their ability to transport us to a different time, exotic locations and jaw-dropping action. Can't complain about the first two as Skulls does a reasonable job on both accounts. It's the action is the greatest tragedy here.

Abundant, and intricate, set pieces are squeezed into the running time but all the modern day technology applied to create these scenes just makes them mechanical and obviously unbelievable. Viewers were never dummies to be fooled into believing a stunt person was never doubling for Harrison Ford in the more perilous stunts from past installments but very thought of an actual breathing, living human being putting their life and limbs at risk, even under tested and controlled conditions, took my breath away. Here we get an obviously green screened chase sequence. Imagine how much more thrilling it would have been if it were shot with real elements and REAL stunt people?

In many ways Indy IV is very similar to last years Die Hard IV. Both are very good films in their respective genres. Perhaps even passable entries in their own franchises but ultimately they are only shadows, pale shadows, of past glories.

Is it even possible to dislike this movie? It's true escapism at its best. Right from the moment we're introduced to a leather jacket sporting Indiana Jones in one of his many adventures to the final horrific unveiling of the Arks powers this is one thrilling ride. Some people credit it for starting the modern day summer blockbuster trend and justifiably so. It has huge action set pieces, witty one-liners and romance to keep members of the fairer sex happy.

Highlights:

Where does one begin? The boulder chase? Out smarting a sword wielding henchman? Decapitating a Nazi? Crazy truck chase through the deserts of Egypt? Choose one.

Temple of Doom [1984]
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Written By: George Lucas (Story), Willard Huyck & Gloria Katz (Screenplay)
Starring: Harrison Ford, Kate Capshaw, Jonathan Ke Quan, Amrish Puri

The sequel, which is really a prequel taking place years before the events of Raiders, is often singled out for its gory imagery. A villain who rips hearts out of live humans, crazy monkey brain eating Indians were probably what lead the MPAA to create a brand new film classification category - PG-13. Having been through bitter divorces each producer George Lucas and director Steven Spielberg craft a darker, yet highly entertaining, adventure.

Highlight:

The mine chase is a thing of beauty. Especially surprising when one takes into account the era when this movie was filmed.

The Last Crusade [1989]
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Written By: George Lucas & Menno Meyjes (Story), Jeffrey Boam (Screenplay)

Starring: Harrison Ford, Sean Connery, John Rhys-Davies, River Phoenix

The first proper sequel gets a lavish treatment. Fans get a quick introduction to Indy's humble beginnings, the inspiration for his gear and the origins of the whip! Upping the comedic angle after the dark Temple of Doom we're also introduced to Dr. Jones Sr (Sean Connery seemingly having a ball playing the part).

Highlight:

Brilliantly the storytellers are able to give us a glimpse into Indiana Jones' early years as a boy scout. Someone should teach all these modern day directors how to do it right! River Phoenix doing a great job as the young Indy is just icing on the cake. If only George Lucas had cast someone just as able to play the role of Anakin sitting through those trite Star Wars prequels wouldn't be half as bad!

Made of Honor [2008]

Directed By: Paul Weiland
Written By: Adam Sztykiel, Deborah Kaplan & Harry Elfont
Starring: Patrick Dempsey, Michelle Monaghan, Kevin McKidd, Kadeem Hardison, Sydney Pollack

Reviewed By Sarhan "Tsar" Rashid

If there was a recipe for a successful romantic comedy then Made Of Honour has all the right ingredients. Taste though is a subjective.

Personally I am not big on the genre. They're predictable, sappy and offer little to no significant insight into the giddying world of romance other than the oft-repeated adage of following ones heart/love conquers all or some other cliche which makes me want to throw up.

That being said you'll be surprised that I still found this simple story rather charming. Unlike many recent films in the genre it takes a very uncluttered, direct approach in telling its two main characters who meet during a raunchy Halloween party. From the get-go you know where the plot is heading and it would be a drag if not for the dependable cast lead by Patrick Dempsey.

My only exposure to McDreamy was his role in Enchanted in which I felt he was flat and frankly a little awkward. Maybe fans of Greys Anatomy (a show I have yet to watch a complete episode of) will beg to differ but I think playing a rich inventor/playboy seems to fit him better.

Though every plot twist can be telegraphed from a mile away the writers have avoided many of the common trappings of the genre when it comes to the characters. They also cleverly avoid the done-to-death battle of the sexes routine. Paul Weiland's paces the film perfectly never letting the sentimental moments bog it down or the humour to wear out its welcome.

While sitting through this movie I could imagine an alternate-world take of it with talking dogs, a stalking villain and majestic Scotsman Sean Connery appearing out of nowhere to challenge the protagonist to a death defying sword fight on the equally majestic hills of Scotland. Until that version gets made I guess I'll enjoy Made of Honour for what it is - a decent time at the movies.

Directed By: Jon Favreau
Written By: Mark Fergus, Hawk Ostby, Art Marcum & Matt Holloway
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Terence Howard, Gwyneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges

Reviewed By Sarhan "Tsar" Rashid

Summer is finally here!

I guess for us, here in sunny Singapore, it doesn't make all that great of a difference. Except when it comes to the choices we're offered at the movies. The season is filled with big budget, star filled entertainers. What better choice to kick off the season then the latest adaptation of a comic book character?

Iron Man finally joins the long list of Marvel characters to make the leap to the big screen. Marvels first independent outing (under their production deal with Paramount) is a glossy effort backed by a very successful marketing effort. Does it warrant the hype though?
The answer is yes and no.

Jon Favreau (look out for his sly cameo) does a competent job of bringing the troubled character of Tony Starks/Iron Man to the screen but the lack of action, heavily emphasized in the trailers, is sure to disappoint fans. Poor pacing mars what could have been an excellent start to the comic book company's first solo foray into the world of film making.

It's a good thing they hired actors, not stars, to fill all the important roles. Without a shadow of a doubt it's Robert Downey Jr. who carries to movie on his newly buffed shoulders. It's a good thing they hired him too since Tony Starks is in almost every scene. The remaining players all shine as well though Gwyneth Paltrow does stick out like a sore thumb when she's playing ditsy.

What redeems Iron Man, after one realizes the lack of big action set pieces, besides the characters are the little nudges aimed at fans. As a first entry in a planned trilogy (they're the "in" thing these days you know) is fairly competent though light on the whiz-bang.

P.S. Stay 'til after the credits for a very short but SPECIAL scene.