ced_yuen
Joined Oct 2003
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews24
ced_yuen's rating
Nowadays, it seems that prequel-reboots of old franchises are all the rage. James Bond, Star Trek and X-Men have all been successfully revived, ready to entertain another generation. Next up is the 'Planet Of The Apes' series, which went stale despite Tim Burton's 'reimagining' in 2001.
Surprisingly, 'Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes' feels nothing like its predecessors. There is no Charlton Heston-type character, no human heroics. There are outlandish sci-fi elements involved, but this is mainly a story about an animal growing up in a human world.
Scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) develops a virus to cure Alzheimer's disease. The project is terminated after a test chimpanzee shows side effects. Will takes home the chimpanzee's baby and names him Caesar. Growing up, Caesar displays extraordinary intelligence, and begins to question his place in the world.
Caesar's development serves as the film's primary story arc. As he goes from playful childhood to aggressive adulthood, he never stops being the film's driving force. It is touching to see him play, chilling to see him rebel - at every turn Caesar has the audience's full emotional investment.
'Rise' is a monster movie in the vein of Frankenstein, but it is also a modern-day Icarus tale, an examination of human arrogance and naïveté. Unexpectedly philosophical and emotional, it feels nothing like any of the earlier films. While there are certainly similarities in terms of plot and theme, this entry represents a significant departure from the franchise.
The biggest change is the use of CGI instead of prosthetics. Not only does this present a visual contrast between 'Rise' and its predecessors - it enables the creation of characters not possible through practical effects. This is the closest that the industry has come to photo-realistic, yet computer-generated, imagery. The use of CGI make-up over motion- captured performances – à la 'Avatar' – is once again a winning combination.
While 'Avatar' bombarded viewers with its imagery, the CGI in 'Rise' is limited to the apes. The approach of blending the real and the rendered is much more subtle, and ultimately it is far easier to immerse oneself into the story.
The wizards at WETA have done a truly stunning job creating the apes. Their facial movements are subtle and nuanced. The apes each look different, and have unique personalities. They feel natural, genuinely coming across as living characters that think, feel and express.
Caesar is particularly well realised – it is only a matter of time before Andy Serkis' performance-capture antics receive more prestigious recognition. It is testament to the skills of WETA and Serkis that a character made from CGI can be so utterly captivating.
Other aspects of the film prove to be just as remarkable. The cinematography is effective. Long takes show the ape action in a clear and coherent manner - short bursts of shaky-cam convey chaos through the eyes of the primates.
Rising director Rupert Wyatt demonstrates impeccable pacing and an ability to handle tension. The human characters are rather one-dimensional - a minor fault in an otherwise flawless operation - but that is of little consequence in a story that focuses on animals.
The formula for franchise-rejuvenation has become very much standardised. Tell an origins story; throw in enough references to keep existing fans happy - leave it open enough to allow for future entries.
'Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes' does all of this, and yet it is much more than a prequel- reboot. It has more heart and intelligence than any film released this summer. Combined with the remarkable special effects, it is easily one of the best films of 2011.
Surprisingly, 'Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes' feels nothing like its predecessors. There is no Charlton Heston-type character, no human heroics. There are outlandish sci-fi elements involved, but this is mainly a story about an animal growing up in a human world.
Scientist Will Rodman (James Franco) develops a virus to cure Alzheimer's disease. The project is terminated after a test chimpanzee shows side effects. Will takes home the chimpanzee's baby and names him Caesar. Growing up, Caesar displays extraordinary intelligence, and begins to question his place in the world.
Caesar's development serves as the film's primary story arc. As he goes from playful childhood to aggressive adulthood, he never stops being the film's driving force. It is touching to see him play, chilling to see him rebel - at every turn Caesar has the audience's full emotional investment.
'Rise' is a monster movie in the vein of Frankenstein, but it is also a modern-day Icarus tale, an examination of human arrogance and naïveté. Unexpectedly philosophical and emotional, it feels nothing like any of the earlier films. While there are certainly similarities in terms of plot and theme, this entry represents a significant departure from the franchise.
The biggest change is the use of CGI instead of prosthetics. Not only does this present a visual contrast between 'Rise' and its predecessors - it enables the creation of characters not possible through practical effects. This is the closest that the industry has come to photo-realistic, yet computer-generated, imagery. The use of CGI make-up over motion- captured performances – à la 'Avatar' – is once again a winning combination.
While 'Avatar' bombarded viewers with its imagery, the CGI in 'Rise' is limited to the apes. The approach of blending the real and the rendered is much more subtle, and ultimately it is far easier to immerse oneself into the story.
The wizards at WETA have done a truly stunning job creating the apes. Their facial movements are subtle and nuanced. The apes each look different, and have unique personalities. They feel natural, genuinely coming across as living characters that think, feel and express.
Caesar is particularly well realised – it is only a matter of time before Andy Serkis' performance-capture antics receive more prestigious recognition. It is testament to the skills of WETA and Serkis that a character made from CGI can be so utterly captivating.
Other aspects of the film prove to be just as remarkable. The cinematography is effective. Long takes show the ape action in a clear and coherent manner - short bursts of shaky-cam convey chaos through the eyes of the primates.
Rising director Rupert Wyatt demonstrates impeccable pacing and an ability to handle tension. The human characters are rather one-dimensional - a minor fault in an otherwise flawless operation - but that is of little consequence in a story that focuses on animals.
The formula for franchise-rejuvenation has become very much standardised. Tell an origins story; throw in enough references to keep existing fans happy - leave it open enough to allow for future entries.
'Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes' does all of this, and yet it is much more than a prequel- reboot. It has more heart and intelligence than any film released this summer. Combined with the remarkable special effects, it is easily one of the best films of 2011.
Marvel Studios' master plan is going well. Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Thor have each made the jump from page to screen, their adventures paving the way for 'The Avengers'. All that remains is Captain America, the last to be adapted before the characters can be assembled next summer.
It is World War II, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is deemed too small and too weak to join the Army. He keeps trying, and eventually he finds himself in an experiment to create super soldiers. Meanwhile, Nazi scientist Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) steps out of Hitler's shadow with his own plans for world domination.
Captain America was conceived as an unapologetically American symbol, designed to boost wartime morale. After the war, the character faded into obscurity, aside from a poorly planned revival labelled 'Captain America: Commie Smasher'. To most people he seems like a relic, a dated caricature of overzealous patriotism. Turning him into a proper character, relevant to today's audience, was always going to be an immense challenge, especially when America's popularity seems to be in constant debate.
Thankfully, the film takes inspiration from the more sensible Captain America stories, the ones that focus on the man rather than the mask. Like any superhero origins story, this is indeed a 'zero to hero' tale, but the film is far more interested in the 'zero', leaving it to the inevitable sequel to focus on the capes and the colours.
As it was with Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins', the protagonist spends most of the film not in costume. Viewers are given time to get to know the weakling Steve Rogers as he goes up against bigger, stronger men and proves his dedication to the values of courage and selflessness. This approach ensures that he always seems like the "brave little guy", regardless of how he later looks.
By taking its time with the character development, the film demonstrates that it is more about ideals than it is about America, which makes the character more universally appealing. The title of 'Captain America' is more of a formality than an accurate description. In fact, a solid segment of the film is devoted to ridiculing and dismissing the character's flag-waving origins.
Chris Evans does a great job as Steve Rogers. His performance is consistently understated; despite the increased muscles and colourful clothes, it is always 'skinny Steve' that the audience sees. A special mention goes to the special effects team, who have done remarkably well in making the physically beefed-up actor look convincingly small and weak.
Hugo Weaving is just as watchable in his role. The Red Skull is the most interesting villain in the Marvel films so far. His obsession with the creation of 'the superior man' makes him a creepy echo of Hitler. Weaving's performance is a mix of German Agent Smith and Bond villain, which works very well.
'Captain America: The First Avenger' is a very solid piece of entertainment. There is a good balance of drama and cheese, of action and humour. The 1940s setting is convincing and there is an old school, Indiana Jones vibe to it. It succeeds as another adaptation of comic- book property, fitting in perfectly with its companions. After this, and the post-credits tease, 'The Avengers' cannot come soon enough.
It is World War II, and Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is deemed too small and too weak to join the Army. He keeps trying, and eventually he finds himself in an experiment to create super soldiers. Meanwhile, Nazi scientist Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) steps out of Hitler's shadow with his own plans for world domination.
Captain America was conceived as an unapologetically American symbol, designed to boost wartime morale. After the war, the character faded into obscurity, aside from a poorly planned revival labelled 'Captain America: Commie Smasher'. To most people he seems like a relic, a dated caricature of overzealous patriotism. Turning him into a proper character, relevant to today's audience, was always going to be an immense challenge, especially when America's popularity seems to be in constant debate.
Thankfully, the film takes inspiration from the more sensible Captain America stories, the ones that focus on the man rather than the mask. Like any superhero origins story, this is indeed a 'zero to hero' tale, but the film is far more interested in the 'zero', leaving it to the inevitable sequel to focus on the capes and the colours.
As it was with Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins', the protagonist spends most of the film not in costume. Viewers are given time to get to know the weakling Steve Rogers as he goes up against bigger, stronger men and proves his dedication to the values of courage and selflessness. This approach ensures that he always seems like the "brave little guy", regardless of how he later looks.
By taking its time with the character development, the film demonstrates that it is more about ideals than it is about America, which makes the character more universally appealing. The title of 'Captain America' is more of a formality than an accurate description. In fact, a solid segment of the film is devoted to ridiculing and dismissing the character's flag-waving origins.
Chris Evans does a great job as Steve Rogers. His performance is consistently understated; despite the increased muscles and colourful clothes, it is always 'skinny Steve' that the audience sees. A special mention goes to the special effects team, who have done remarkably well in making the physically beefed-up actor look convincingly small and weak.
Hugo Weaving is just as watchable in his role. The Red Skull is the most interesting villain in the Marvel films so far. His obsession with the creation of 'the superior man' makes him a creepy echo of Hitler. Weaving's performance is a mix of German Agent Smith and Bond villain, which works very well.
'Captain America: The First Avenger' is a very solid piece of entertainment. There is a good balance of drama and cheese, of action and humour. The 1940s setting is convincing and there is an old school, Indiana Jones vibe to it. It succeeds as another adaptation of comic- book property, fitting in perfectly with its companions. After this, and the post-credits tease, 'The Avengers' cannot come soon enough.
'Cars 2' is preceded by 'Hawaiian Vacation', a short film set in the Toy Story universe. Despite the fact that 'Toy Story 3' was supposed to be the end of the franchise, Pixar seems reluctant to let go. It is not hard to see why - despite being only 6 minutes long, this appetiser manages to pack more Pixar magic than the main feature.
That is not to say that 'Cars 2' is a bad film. There are clever ideas, and moments of charm and wit, but the film does not spend enough time on them. As a result, the film fails to reach the lofty standards associated with Pixar.
At one point during its development, the film must have centred on a new story, with new characters. As the film opens, British secret agent Finn McMissile (Michael Caine, as a DB5) investigates a conspiracy involving alternative fuel, scaling an oil-drilling platform with magnetic tyres and grappling hooks.
The mood is one of intentional melodrama, simultaneously revering and ridiculing the adventures of 007. The sequence inevitably culminates in a car chase, and it is more thrilling and visually appealing than anything that EON has produced in recent years.
Things should have stayed that way, because 'Cars 2' is at its strongest when it has nothing to do with its predecessor. Alas, Finn McMissile becomes a secondary character, while the narrative returns to Radiator Springs. Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) accepts a challenge to participate in the World Grand Prix. Accompanying him is his best(est) buddy Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), whose bumbling misadventures become the overpowering flavour of the remaining 90 minutes.
It is here that the film blows a tyre. As a supporting character, Mater was fun and endearing. The hillbilly schtick came in small doses and served as effective comic relief. Placing him in the spotlight and trying to make him a hero, however, highlights the character's lack of depth. Jokes based on Mater's stupidity mostly consist of slapstick humour, which wears thin very quickly. What makes this worse is the decision to merge his storyline with that of Finn McMissile.
It is one thing to make a 'Cars' spin-off based on Mater, but quite another to combine a simple, child-oriented narrative with a more serious, sinister plot that, at one point, actually involves car-torture and car-assassination. The result is dissatisfactory, creating a jarring blend of the right things in the wrong proportions.
There is barely any solid racing, which unravels the foundations from the last film. There is not enough spy drama, which raises questions about the point of introducing the espionage element at all. On the other hand, there are many attempts to be funny, the success of which depends on the age of the viewer.
Ultimately, 'Cars 2' is a wasted opportunity. The Bond-inspired opening hinted at great things that were merely sprinkled throughout the film. It is a solid example of animation, but it does not feel like it is really part of the Pixar collection. Over the years Pixar has built up a reputation for films accessible to adults and children alike, and this is not one of them.
Children will no doubt have too much fun to notice the lack of sophistication, but adults used to the universal appeal of Pixar's standard fare will find this disappointing. 'Cars 2' is a fun film, but it is no 'Toy Story 3'.
That is not to say that 'Cars 2' is a bad film. There are clever ideas, and moments of charm and wit, but the film does not spend enough time on them. As a result, the film fails to reach the lofty standards associated with Pixar.
At one point during its development, the film must have centred on a new story, with new characters. As the film opens, British secret agent Finn McMissile (Michael Caine, as a DB5) investigates a conspiracy involving alternative fuel, scaling an oil-drilling platform with magnetic tyres and grappling hooks.
The mood is one of intentional melodrama, simultaneously revering and ridiculing the adventures of 007. The sequence inevitably culminates in a car chase, and it is more thrilling and visually appealing than anything that EON has produced in recent years.
Things should have stayed that way, because 'Cars 2' is at its strongest when it has nothing to do with its predecessor. Alas, Finn McMissile becomes a secondary character, while the narrative returns to Radiator Springs. Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) accepts a challenge to participate in the World Grand Prix. Accompanying him is his best(est) buddy Mater (Larry the Cable Guy), whose bumbling misadventures become the overpowering flavour of the remaining 90 minutes.
It is here that the film blows a tyre. As a supporting character, Mater was fun and endearing. The hillbilly schtick came in small doses and served as effective comic relief. Placing him in the spotlight and trying to make him a hero, however, highlights the character's lack of depth. Jokes based on Mater's stupidity mostly consist of slapstick humour, which wears thin very quickly. What makes this worse is the decision to merge his storyline with that of Finn McMissile.
It is one thing to make a 'Cars' spin-off based on Mater, but quite another to combine a simple, child-oriented narrative with a more serious, sinister plot that, at one point, actually involves car-torture and car-assassination. The result is dissatisfactory, creating a jarring blend of the right things in the wrong proportions.
There is barely any solid racing, which unravels the foundations from the last film. There is not enough spy drama, which raises questions about the point of introducing the espionage element at all. On the other hand, there are many attempts to be funny, the success of which depends on the age of the viewer.
Ultimately, 'Cars 2' is a wasted opportunity. The Bond-inspired opening hinted at great things that were merely sprinkled throughout the film. It is a solid example of animation, but it does not feel like it is really part of the Pixar collection. Over the years Pixar has built up a reputation for films accessible to adults and children alike, and this is not one of them.
Children will no doubt have too much fun to notice the lack of sophistication, but adults used to the universal appeal of Pixar's standard fare will find this disappointing. 'Cars 2' is a fun film, but it is no 'Toy Story 3'.