Rating: *** (out of 4)
Cast: Sharifah Amani, Sharifah Aleysha, Brian Yap
Director: Yasmin Ahmad
Language: In English, Malay with English subtitle
‘Muallaf’ from the late Yasmin Ahmad, who past away on July 2009, was actually made before her final film ‘Talentime’. It was not released until now due to its problem with the Malaysian censorship authorities. In any case, it is strangely fitting as a final release, because the film represents Yasmin’s voice, her belief, her views and her philosophy. This is true for all her other films as well, but never had it been as explicit as in ‘Muallaf’.
It tells the story of 2 Muslim sisters, Rohani (Sharifah Amani) and Rohana (Sharifah Aleysha), who ran away from their wealthy but abusive father, and reside in a vacant bungalow in Ipoh. Rohana has a peculiar habit of reciting some strange random numbers when confronted by others. Others were disturbed by that strange habit. What the numbers actually meant, I’ll not disclose in this review. Anyway, the sisters befriended Brian Goh (Brian Yap), a young teacher in a Catholic school, whom the sisters nicknamed ‘Mr. Miserable’, because he never smiled in class. It tuned out that all 3 of them are in a similar predicament; they were traumatized by mistreatment by their loved ones, their family. Brian, who was raised in a Christian family, had drifted away from his religious faith due to that. The sisters, however, were more positive and forgiving.
‘Muallaf’, as a film, certainly has depth. At its surface layer, it is touching as a human drama, about 3 traumatized souls who met and console each other. Yasmin’s films always give us characters that engage us. Watching it, we care for them. Sharifah Amani, in particular, shines as Rohani. She has come a long way. Her debut in ‘Sepet’ was a discovery, and she has progressed steadily ever since, growing in maturity and grace.
But ‘Muallaf’ is not just a human drama, it is much more ambitious than that. Yasmin wanted to make a statement about what religious faith is all about. I happened to read some articles about her personal life, and one of her friend recalled that he saw Yasmin weeping at one quiet corner of her office, while praying to God to forgive the soul who had hurt her. That was what got portrayed here in ‘Muallaf’, through the sisters Rohani and Rohana. I also happened to watch a TV interview with Yasmin’s mother, who recalled that Yasmin was such a loving child that she will immediately apologized to her mother if she happened to raise her voice a little bit against her mother. That was also what got portrayed here in the film, when Brian raised his voice while talking to his mother on the phone, Rohani who was besides him, asked him never to talk to his mother like that again.
It’s about compassion, it’s about forgiveness, and it’s about not taking your loved ones for granted. You can’t fault a noble theme like that, but as I judge a movie not based on its subject matter, but based on how effectively it presents its subject matter, I felt that while ‘Muallaf’ works commendably as a touching human drama, but in its more ambitious thematic preoccupation of social commentary, it is ok but not great. My little problem with it is that, it feels preachy. It is as if Yasmin was trying too hard to tell us her message. The cinema language is at its most powerful when it indirectly awakens viewers to its message, without explicitly telling them. Yasmin’s own ‘Gubra’, is one such film. In ‘Gubra’, it ends with scenes of people from different religions praying in their respective place of worship, and we realize that everyone is looking for God in their own ways. How powerful.
In ‘Muallaf’, the same message is told, but explicitly in words, told by the character Brother Anthony. The film also quotes direct words from the scriptures in a number of occasions, this is again explicit; and Rohani explicitly tells Brian not to raise his voice against his mother.
This is all noble indeed, but when you try too hard, it came across as preachy and it diminishes the power of the cinema language. ‘Muallaf’ is fairly good, but ‘Gubra’ remains the best Yasmin Ahmad film, in my opinion, followed closely by ‘Sepet.
* ‘Muallaf’ won the Best Asian-Middle Eastern Film Award (special mention) in the 2008 Tokyo International Film Festival
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Zombieland
Rating: *** (out of 4)Cast: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Bill Murray, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin
Director: Ruben Fleischer
If zombie movie is a sub genre of the broader horror genre, then zombie comedies like ‘Zombieland’ and ‘Shaun of the dead’ (2004) had been gradually claiming a place as a ‘sub sub genre’ under the zombie movies sub genre.
Zombie movie, was of course pioneered by the genre master George A. Romero, the man behind the ‘Dead’ series; ‘Night of the Living Dead’ (1968), ‘Dawn of the Dead’ (1979), ‘Day of the Dead’ (1985), ‘Land of the Dead’ (2005) and ‘Diary of the Dead’ (2008). His ‘Dead’ series are considerable films, using zombies as instruments for social commentary.
In more recent times, zombie comedies have sustained zombies’ place in modern pop culture, thanks to movies like ‘Shaun of the Dead’ and now ‘Zombieland’.
‘Zombieland’ is a funny movie. It tells the story of 4 reluctant partners who stick together to survive post apocalyptic United States of Zombieland. The plot took the form of a road movie,and to a lesser extend a love comedy. There are 4 main characters; the cowardly nerd Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), the cool zombie slayer Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), the con sisters Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin). The characterization is fairly rich which is a good thing.
There is a hilarious cameo role by Bill Murray playing himself, nice one.
‘Zombieland’ isn’t a spectacular movie. It works in what it intend to do, which is to be a funny zombie comedy with fairly likable characters, their story together while undergoing a road trip to a reputedly zombie-free California amusement park. The motive behind the journey probably doesn’t make much sense. It doesn’t matter, it is a little bit dumb but fun.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
2046
Rating: *** (out of 4)
Cast: Tony Leung, Gong Li, Faye Wong, Zhang Ziyi, Carina Lau
Director: Wong Kar Wai
Year of Release: 2005
This is a film that I'll suggest you to give it a second try, if you feel that you don't get it after your first viewing, like I did. I was less than impressed on my first viewing. I thought to myself, if '2046', like so many of Wong Kar Wai's films, is about loneliness and loss, how can I empathize with Chow Mo Wan (Tony Leung), a womanizer who seemed to be having hell of a time having a series of affairs with 4 different gorgeously beautiful women? Besides, its almost chaotic, non-linear narrative structure certainly did not help, and I can't quite get the whole futuristic idea. Well, at least not in my first viewing.
I gave it another try, and boy it was quite a difference on second viewing.
Roger Ebert said in his review of '2046':
'All of these relationship are seen in carefully composed shots that seem to be remembering the characters more than seeing them'.
That, I think, is the key to understand what '2046' is all about. It is primarily a meditation on memory and regret over unrequited love. Wong's movies are about tone and mod. He uses light, colors, sumptuous visuals, and music to evoke the the tone and mood he desires. Story, plot and narrative are secondary in Wong's films. So, the fact that you would have known what happened in the story on your second viewing actually helps. It frees up your sensors to feel the tone and mood, along with your heart.
And who is to say that a womanizer does not have room for feeling and serious love? In '2046', Chow struggled to get over the loss of Su Li Zhen (Maggie Cheung), his love interest from 'In the Mood for Love'. So much so that when he met a mysterious woman (Gong Li) with the same name, he subconsciously take a emotional relationship with her in order to compensate for his longing for the first Su Li Zhen. He had a chance for a serious relationship with Bai Ling (Zhang Ziyi), who genuinely liked him. Instead he rejected her but remained a good friend and a close confidant of Bai Ling. Chow then took on a liking on Wang Jing Wen (Faye Wong), daughter of his landlord, Mr. Wang, but that ended up as another unrequited love in Chow's memory.
The futuristic idea, I understand it better on my second viewing, though may be not entirely. It is a metaphor on Chow's memory of his experience lodging in Mr. Wang's hotel in Hong Kong, and the women he met there and had relationship with. How do I know that? The hotel manager and the train captain is the same person, and the waitress on the train look like the same women he had true feeling on, while lodging in Mr. Wang's hotel. There was the rejection by the train waitress (the Wang Jing Wen look-alike), representing the sting of rejection on Chow's part over an unrequited love. So, the train to 2046 is a metaphor on Chow's longing on his past memory. The fact that nothing changes on the train is a manifestation on Chow's regret over his unrequited love, and how he wanted to recapture the past and suspend the memory. But he later found that, you may be able to re-capture the past in the train, but you can't change it. The past he re-captured is still one of rejection and regret.
Wider in scope and ambition, '2046' may not be as accessible as 'In the Mood for Love'. It is easy to empathize with the protagonists' memory and regret, when it is about 2 person set in single space and time, as in 'In the Mood for Love'. '2046' spans multiple time space, 4 different women, and 2 cities (HK and Singapore), told in a non-linear narration structure. It is understandable if it overwhelmed its viewers. To those who is willing to give it a second viewing, try to feel it with your heart and you shall be well rewarded.
* '2046' was an official selection (in competition) for the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. It also won 6 awards in the 2005 Hong Kong Film Award for best actor, best actress, best art direction, best cinematography, best costume design and make up and best original film score.
Cast: Tony Leung, Gong Li, Faye Wong, Zhang Ziyi, Carina Lau
Director: Wong Kar Wai
Year of Release: 2005
This is a film that I'll suggest you to give it a second try, if you feel that you don't get it after your first viewing, like I did. I was less than impressed on my first viewing. I thought to myself, if '2046', like so many of Wong Kar Wai's films, is about loneliness and loss, how can I empathize with Chow Mo Wan (Tony Leung), a womanizer who seemed to be having hell of a time having a series of affairs with 4 different gorgeously beautiful women? Besides, its almost chaotic, non-linear narrative structure certainly did not help, and I can't quite get the whole futuristic idea. Well, at least not in my first viewing.
I gave it another try, and boy it was quite a difference on second viewing.
Roger Ebert said in his review of '2046':
'All of these relationship are seen in carefully composed shots that seem to be remembering the characters more than seeing them'.
That, I think, is the key to understand what '2046' is all about. It is primarily a meditation on memory and regret over unrequited love. Wong's movies are about tone and mod. He uses light, colors, sumptuous visuals, and music to evoke the the tone and mood he desires. Story, plot and narrative are secondary in Wong's films. So, the fact that you would have known what happened in the story on your second viewing actually helps. It frees up your sensors to feel the tone and mood, along with your heart.
And who is to say that a womanizer does not have room for feeling and serious love? In '2046', Chow struggled to get over the loss of Su Li Zhen (Maggie Cheung), his love interest from 'In the Mood for Love'. So much so that when he met a mysterious woman (Gong Li) with the same name, he subconsciously take a emotional relationship with her in order to compensate for his longing for the first Su Li Zhen. He had a chance for a serious relationship with Bai Ling (Zhang Ziyi), who genuinely liked him. Instead he rejected her but remained a good friend and a close confidant of Bai Ling. Chow then took on a liking on Wang Jing Wen (Faye Wong), daughter of his landlord, Mr. Wang, but that ended up as another unrequited love in Chow's memory.
The futuristic idea, I understand it better on my second viewing, though may be not entirely. It is a metaphor on Chow's memory of his experience lodging in Mr. Wang's hotel in Hong Kong, and the women he met there and had relationship with. How do I know that? The hotel manager and the train captain is the same person, and the waitress on the train look like the same women he had true feeling on, while lodging in Mr. Wang's hotel. There was the rejection by the train waitress (the Wang Jing Wen look-alike), representing the sting of rejection on Chow's part over an unrequited love. So, the train to 2046 is a metaphor on Chow's longing on his past memory. The fact that nothing changes on the train is a manifestation on Chow's regret over his unrequited love, and how he wanted to recapture the past and suspend the memory. But he later found that, you may be able to re-capture the past in the train, but you can't change it. The past he re-captured is still one of rejection and regret.
Wider in scope and ambition, '2046' may not be as accessible as 'In the Mood for Love'. It is easy to empathize with the protagonists' memory and regret, when it is about 2 person set in single space and time, as in 'In the Mood for Love'. '2046' spans multiple time space, 4 different women, and 2 cities (HK and Singapore), told in a non-linear narration structure. It is understandable if it overwhelmed its viewers. To those who is willing to give it a second viewing, try to feel it with your heart and you shall be well rewarded.
* '2046' was an official selection (in competition) for the 2004 Cannes Film Festival. It also won 6 awards in the 2005 Hong Kong Film Award for best actor, best actress, best art direction, best cinematography, best costume design and make up and best original film score.
2012
Rating: * (out of 4)Cast: John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Oliver Platt, Woody Harrelson, Danny Glover, Thandie Newton
Director: Roland Emmerich
Dear Mr. Roland Emmerich,
Sorry, I have nothing against you, but I think your '2012' sucks. This is regrettable as I actually like some of your earlier works. I enjoyed your 'Independence Day', and I also quite like your 'The Day After Tomorrow'. I hated your '3000 BC', I wished it was just one of your off-day, but your '2012' is just as bad.
What's going on with you? You are certainly capable of making decently entertaining commercial blockbusters, but you seemed to have got carried away showing off your expertise in destrucive show piece. You see, earth-shattering special effects alone don't make a disaster movie works. It needs to be accompanied by the right mood and tone (tension, intrigue, suspense), but '2012' evokes none of it. Hey, your 'Independence Day' did alright on that account, with the giant alien spaceship hovering on the sky, it was tensed as hell.
Instead, in '2012', you gave us a goofy premise, and plenty of cheesy moments. The core of the earth is heating up? Come on, if you can't come out with a more believable premise, just leave it unexplained. Our own imagination would take care of that, and dare I say it, to better effect.
Your set-up scene in '2012' just fails to connect. There was no tension, no intrigue, no suspense. It shouldn't be because strange events were happening, cracks were appearing on Earth's surface. When your President (Danny Glover) announced that the Earth is coming to an end, it didn't resonate. Woo...the end of the world huh, so what?
Why is that? I have said it and will say it again: you got so carried away with your destructive show piece till you neglect the basic elements of film making.
When the destruction started, the whole 2 hour of it, it doesn't save the film. It's so over-the-top that it looks, dare I say it, fake. You are matching Michael Bay's expertise in sensory overkill, and that's not a good role model to follow.
Dear Mr. Roland Emmerich,
When I was watching your '2012' in my local cinema, I was surrounded by kids (school holidays, you see), and they are restless throughout the screening, clearly bored. When the show ended, they cheered. 'Yeah...mummy, it's the end!'
'Of course, the are just kids', you may want to say.
But I'll remind you that something's not right. You are making a mainstream blockbusters that should appeal to the mass, including the kids. You are not making a deep films that kids cannot understand. I still remember the screenings I attended for 'Jurassic Park', and even your 'Independence Day'. Boy, the kids were glued to their seats. See, don't underestimate the kids.
And...when the show ended and the credits rolled, I saw adults yawning besides me.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
This is it
Rating: ** (out of 4)Director: Kenny Ortega
The media had not been kind to Michael Jackson (MJ).
MJ's later stage of his career had seen the media focusing on his troubled personal life, his looks, his lawsuits, to an extend that a non-fan like me thought that that was more or less what MJ was all about. There had been so much images on the media showing his pale skin, his plastic face and nose, someone once said that MJ was one of the creepiest being on earth.
Or was it?
Here in 'This is it', we see a immensely talented artist in full command of his shows, a master in dance movement with boundless energy. There is not a trace of a man rumored to be too weak to tour. He was on top of everything. Conceiving, directing, producing, singing, dancing; he was the ultimate captain behind the creative aspects of the London concert that never took place. He was the boss.
MJ was surprisingly soft-spoken, always well-mannered to his working crew. There was no sign of any spoilt celebrity tantrum when something went wrong during the rehearsal. 'That's what rehearsals are for', he will say politely to the crew who made the mistake, never raising his voice. Here's a man working tirelessly for the love of his art, while maintaining his humility.
What did he do to deserve such harsh media bashing, I will never quite comprehend. Although 'This is it' could have been 'polished' to certain degree, viewing it I do not think that what we see is a fabricated deception. These are, after all, real documentary video footage.
The greatest joy of the film, is to see how MJ interacted with his working crew. This as close a source we have to gain some insights into his mysterious personality. I wish Kenny Ortega, the director, could have given us more of those, and trim down on the lengthy rehearsal music sequence.
I mean, of course the music is a big part of any musical documentary, and fans will no doubt value it. But for a non-fan, we really wish to know MJ better as a person, we wish to have more insights.
After all, MJ was half-singing for the bulk of the rehearsal, in order to conserve his voice for the actual show.
If there's one thing that struck me, it is how I realized that a negative celebrity image could be result of a one-sided portrayal by the media (to sell more papers I presumed). There are 2 sides to everything, and 'This is it' gave us the professional side of MJ that has been unjustifiably side-stepped by the media for so long.
Walk The Line
Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Reese Witherspoon
Director: James Mangold
Year of Release: 2005
Studio Exec: What's with the black? Looks as if you are going for a funereal'
Cash: 'May be I am'
That sums up the character of the legendary 'Man in black' Johnny Cash. His is one of defiance, determination and boldness.
Musical biopics more or less follow the same story arc. The dream, the initial struggle, the breakthrough, the rise to stardom, the setback, the drugs and booze, and finally picking themselves up again. 'Walk The Line' is very much in that formula, hence this is no inventive film making. But then again most story about musical stars does follow such patterns, so it would be unfair to criticize it just because it is formulaic. What does matter is the execution, how effectively the movie engage us emotionally in its story. In that regard, 'Walk The Line' scores.
'Walk The Line' succeed due to its acting and music. Reese Witherspoon's Oscar winning performance as June Carter is not exactly the kind of eye-catching performance often expected of an award-winning performance. This is a performance that looks ordinary on the surface, but it grows on you. It grows on you because of the emotional subtleties it carries to good effect. June's feeling on Cash, her hesitation to marry him, her sympathy towards him, and her own personal problem with her negative public image (back then, societies are not too kind with women like her who divorced), this is a substantial acting performance by Witherspoon.
Phoenix's Oscar nominated performance as Johnny Cash brings the otherwise ordinary story to a personal level, lending crucial emotional connection to the viewers. We admire his courage, we sympathized with his traumatized life background, his emotional upheaval and his subsequent problems with drug addiction. More so, Phoenix's Cash painted a haunting portrait of a soul threatened by the dark side of fame.
Oh, and the music. It is now a well-known fact that Phoenix and Witherspoon did their own singing in the film. Energetic and lovely, that's what make 'Walk The Line' such a crowd pleasing offering.
* 'Walk The Line' was nominated 5 Oscars in the 2005 Academy Awards, for best actor, best actress, best costume design, best editing and best sound mixing. It won the best actress award for Reese Witherspoon's performance as June Carter.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Inglourious Basterds
Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)
Cast: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent, Eli Roth, Micheal Fassbender, Diane Kruger
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Quentin Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' is a dazzling piece of film making, a further testament to Tarantino's reputation as one of the most inventive filmmaker in business. He has a knack of tackling violent, risky subject matter. He understands, and crafts it into a substantial piece of art. This is in striking contrast to a lot of his lesser peers who merely exploit the violence in making mediocre films.
His works also always comes with a strong sense of auteur; that sharp, delicious dialogue, abundance of film references, delightful musical score accompaniment, all that are trademark Tarantino.
'Inglourious Basterds' is full of all that. The film opens with the first chapter 'Once Upon a Time in Nazi-occupied France', with its title, music and scenery all evoke a reference to Sergio Leone's spaghetti Westerns. In come Christoph Waltz, terrific throughout the film as the cunning yet charming 'the Jew Hunter' Col. Hans Landa. He confronted a farmer suspected of hiding Jews. The whole sequence is a tensed cat-and-mouse game, not by action but by Tarantino sharp dialogue. He leisurely takes his time to let his brilliant dialogue build up its momentum, starting from the Col.'s friendly request for farm milk to an eventual reference to rats. That is vintage Tarantino. One of the hiding Jews, Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) narrowly escaped from the massacre, only to feature later in the film.
The second chapter introduces 'The Basterds', a group of Jewish American on a mission to 'kill the Nazi'. They are headed by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Here, Tarantino's trademark stylized violence make its first appearance in the film.
Subsequent chapters shapes up the revenge plot, which is itself a ultimate revenge fantasy only a true film buff like Tarantino is able to come out with. Film reference galore, the basterds was involved in a assassination plot with a German movie star, Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) as a British spy. They also teamed up with a British soldier who is a film critic(!), sent by the British military authority because the mission requires his German film knowledge.
Meanwhile, Shosanna was plotting her own vengeance at a movie theater she operates, using the highly flammable nitrate film prints as a secret weapon. In the run up to the climax, there are more tensed cat-and-mouse espionage sequence, again driven by sharp Tarantino's dialogue. One of which involved Shosanna's nervous encounter with her old nemesis, Col. Hans Landa in a French restaurant, another involved Beidget and the basterds trying to outwit the Nazi in a pub, which eventually ended with a bloody shoot-up.
As for the climax, the two revenge plot converged at Shasanna's movie theater, at an exclusive premier of a new German propaganda film, 'The Nation Pride', attended by all the Nazi top official, and by Hitler himself. Of course, none of this is historically accurate. This is all wild fantasy that is strangely satisfying to watch, especially to the true film buffs.
I was having a hard time deciding whether to give 'Inglourius Basterds' a four star or a three-and-a-half. I finally decided on a three-and-a-half. I usually reserve my four star rating to films which I think, are flawless. 'Inglourius Basterds' is undeniably a very good Tarantino film, I only had some minor problem, particularly with the sequence involving Bridget the movie star, the basterds, and a bunch of Nazi at a pub, which I think is a little overlong and loses some momentum as a result. But there's so much in the film that I suspect I will like the film even more on a second viewing.
* In the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, 'Inglourius Basterds' was an official selection (in competition). It also won the Best Actor award for Christoph Waltz's performance as Col. Hans Landa
Cast: Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent, Eli Roth, Micheal Fassbender, Diane Kruger
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Quentin Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' is a dazzling piece of film making, a further testament to Tarantino's reputation as one of the most inventive filmmaker in business. He has a knack of tackling violent, risky subject matter. He understands, and crafts it into a substantial piece of art. This is in striking contrast to a lot of his lesser peers who merely exploit the violence in making mediocre films.
His works also always comes with a strong sense of auteur; that sharp, delicious dialogue, abundance of film references, delightful musical score accompaniment, all that are trademark Tarantino.
'Inglourious Basterds' is full of all that. The film opens with the first chapter 'Once Upon a Time in Nazi-occupied France', with its title, music and scenery all evoke a reference to Sergio Leone's spaghetti Westerns. In come Christoph Waltz, terrific throughout the film as the cunning yet charming 'the Jew Hunter' Col. Hans Landa. He confronted a farmer suspected of hiding Jews. The whole sequence is a tensed cat-and-mouse game, not by action but by Tarantino sharp dialogue. He leisurely takes his time to let his brilliant dialogue build up its momentum, starting from the Col.'s friendly request for farm milk to an eventual reference to rats. That is vintage Tarantino. One of the hiding Jews, Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) narrowly escaped from the massacre, only to feature later in the film.
The second chapter introduces 'The Basterds', a group of Jewish American on a mission to 'kill the Nazi'. They are headed by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt). Here, Tarantino's trademark stylized violence make its first appearance in the film.
Subsequent chapters shapes up the revenge plot, which is itself a ultimate revenge fantasy only a true film buff like Tarantino is able to come out with. Film reference galore, the basterds was involved in a assassination plot with a German movie star, Bridget Von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) as a British spy. They also teamed up with a British soldier who is a film critic(!), sent by the British military authority because the mission requires his German film knowledge.
Meanwhile, Shosanna was plotting her own vengeance at a movie theater she operates, using the highly flammable nitrate film prints as a secret weapon. In the run up to the climax, there are more tensed cat-and-mouse espionage sequence, again driven by sharp Tarantino's dialogue. One of which involved Shosanna's nervous encounter with her old nemesis, Col. Hans Landa in a French restaurant, another involved Beidget and the basterds trying to outwit the Nazi in a pub, which eventually ended with a bloody shoot-up.
As for the climax, the two revenge plot converged at Shasanna's movie theater, at an exclusive premier of a new German propaganda film, 'The Nation Pride', attended by all the Nazi top official, and by Hitler himself. Of course, none of this is historically accurate. This is all wild fantasy that is strangely satisfying to watch, especially to the true film buffs.
I was having a hard time deciding whether to give 'Inglourius Basterds' a four star or a three-and-a-half. I finally decided on a three-and-a-half. I usually reserve my four star rating to films which I think, are flawless. 'Inglourius Basterds' is undeniably a very good Tarantino film, I only had some minor problem, particularly with the sequence involving Bridget the movie star, the basterds, and a bunch of Nazi at a pub, which I think is a little overlong and loses some momentum as a result. But there's so much in the film that I suspect I will like the film even more on a second viewing.
* In the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, 'Inglourius Basterds' was an official selection (in competition). It also won the Best Actor award for Christoph Waltz's performance as Col. Hans Landa
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Papadom
Rating: **1/2 (out of 4)
Cast: Afdlin Shauki, Liyana Jasmay, Noorkhiriah, Vanidah Imran, Farid Kamil
Director: Afdlin Shauki
Language: In Malay with English subtitle
A best film winner at the 22nd Malaysian Film Festival, Afdlin Shauki's 'Papadom' is a family oriented comedy-drama that tells the story of Saadom (Afdlin Shauki), a successful 'nasi kandar' business man in Penang who lost his wife (played by Noorkhiriah) in a traffic accident. Regretting that he had not spent enough time with his wife and daughter when his wife was still alive, Saadom vowed to take care of his daughter, Miasara (Liyana Jasmay) to the best of his ability. So protective is he that when Miasara is moving into a university for her undergraduate study, he is willing to leave his successful 'nasi kandar' business behind and goes undercover as a gardener in the university campus, so that he can watch over Miasara.
It is a problematic premise. Problematic, because it is just not that believable, and it felt cheesy. Well, may be such obsessively protective parents do exist, but it is still problematic if majority of the viewers find it to be bizarre. 'Do you see any other parents who follow his kids to a high school party?' Miasara asked Saadom.
Nevertheless, despite the problematic premise, the film is sustained largely due to Afdlin Shauki's comedic talent. There's no denying of his ability to induce laughter with his witty one-liner and hilarious situation. Yes, 'Papadom' is genuinely funny in its moments but felt somewhat incoherent as a whole, probably because at times it tends to drag on too long on its slapstick comedic moments, thus diluting its core story arc.
But Afdlin deserves his best actor award, he is able switch seamlessly from a comedian to a thoughtful father when the story requires it. Vanidah Imran has a supporting role as Professor Balqis, and hers is a delight to watch, we wish to see her longer in the film. Noorkhiriah, too is effective as Saadom's wife, sensitive and funny at the right moment. However, I am not too impressed with the teenage cast whose tendency to burst into theatrical over-acting borders on the edge of being annoying.
I suspect that the panel jury at the 22nd Malaysian Film Festival might have been won over by the film's climatic moment, which took place in a screening session of the student's film works. It is brilliant in a way, emotionally wrenching and suddenly we realize about the significance of the film's title, 'Papadom'. So, despite its problematic premise and uneven journey, there's no denying the redemptive power of a well-conceived climatic ending.
* 'Papadom' was a best film winner at the 22nd Malaysian Film Festival. It also won 4 other awards in the same festival for best actor, best actress, best original story and best musical score.
Cast: Afdlin Shauki, Liyana Jasmay, Noorkhiriah, Vanidah Imran, Farid Kamil
Director: Afdlin Shauki
Language: In Malay with English subtitle
A best film winner at the 22nd Malaysian Film Festival, Afdlin Shauki's 'Papadom' is a family oriented comedy-drama that tells the story of Saadom (Afdlin Shauki), a successful 'nasi kandar' business man in Penang who lost his wife (played by Noorkhiriah) in a traffic accident. Regretting that he had not spent enough time with his wife and daughter when his wife was still alive, Saadom vowed to take care of his daughter, Miasara (Liyana Jasmay) to the best of his ability. So protective is he that when Miasara is moving into a university for her undergraduate study, he is willing to leave his successful 'nasi kandar' business behind and goes undercover as a gardener in the university campus, so that he can watch over Miasara.
It is a problematic premise. Problematic, because it is just not that believable, and it felt cheesy. Well, may be such obsessively protective parents do exist, but it is still problematic if majority of the viewers find it to be bizarre. 'Do you see any other parents who follow his kids to a high school party?' Miasara asked Saadom.
Nevertheless, despite the problematic premise, the film is sustained largely due to Afdlin Shauki's comedic talent. There's no denying of his ability to induce laughter with his witty one-liner and hilarious situation. Yes, 'Papadom' is genuinely funny in its moments but felt somewhat incoherent as a whole, probably because at times it tends to drag on too long on its slapstick comedic moments, thus diluting its core story arc.
But Afdlin deserves his best actor award, he is able switch seamlessly from a comedian to a thoughtful father when the story requires it. Vanidah Imran has a supporting role as Professor Balqis, and hers is a delight to watch, we wish to see her longer in the film. Noorkhiriah, too is effective as Saadom's wife, sensitive and funny at the right moment. However, I am not too impressed with the teenage cast whose tendency to burst into theatrical over-acting borders on the edge of being annoying.
I suspect that the panel jury at the 22nd Malaysian Film Festival might have been won over by the film's climatic moment, which took place in a screening session of the student's film works. It is brilliant in a way, emotionally wrenching and suddenly we realize about the significance of the film's title, 'Papadom'. So, despite its problematic premise and uneven journey, there's no denying the redemptive power of a well-conceived climatic ending.
* 'Papadom' was a best film winner at the 22nd Malaysian Film Festival. It also won 4 other awards in the same festival for best actor, best actress, best original story and best musical score.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Sideways
Rating: **** (out of 4)
Cast: Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, Sandra Oh
Director: Alexander Payne
Year of release: 2004
Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti) is a middle-aged man who is stuck in a stagnant job teaching English in high school. His true ambition, which is to become a writer, is going nowhere with his novel struggling to get published. His marriage too, failed 2 years ago. Everyday, after work, he comes back to a empty, lonely home. He has a habit of dining alone in quiet corners of restaurants.
Romantic life? Miles has more or less gave up on that prospect. With a balding hair, bulging tummy and fading youth, Miles runs low on confidence on how he looks and his own perceived career failure, and he thinks that no women will find him attractive for that. So dejected is he that when an attractive waitress Maya (Virginia Madsen) whom he had secretly taken a liking on asked him what is he doing for the night, he dully said to her 'You know, I am kind of tired by the day's traveling so I guess I will just go back to the Motel room to sleep'.
No, he's not a homo. But he sometimes gets so sicked of his best friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church)'s persistence on setting him up for dates that he will say 'Alright, alright, I am a homo. Give me a gay confession letter and I'll sign it. Just don't push me any further!'
Thank God, he has a way to light up his depressed life with his whole-hearted passion on wine. A passion like this may seems like a trivial hobby to others, but writer-director Alexander Payne knows that to someone like Miles, it is by no way just a hobby. It is in fact, a critical element that keeps him going with his life.
That shows incredibly sharp observation on human nature by the writer-director. That quality is also what makes 'Sideways' such a heartfelt, moving and wonderful film. It is road movie at its most inspiring. Payne understands that people like Miles is quite common among us. Hell, it can even be you or me. Majority of us, like it or not, lives an ordinary life. Many of us goes on with our monotonous life routine with ideals and dreams unfulfilled, and there comes a time when we start questioning the whole meaning of our lives and grow insecure over it. A classic case of mid life crisis and Payne (and his co-writer Jim Taylor) made a hero out of it, unconventional in every sense and devoid of any screen stereotype. Brilliant.
Mile's best friend Jack is getting married in a week's time. To celebrate Jack's last week of bachelor-hood, Miles treats him to a wine tasting road trip across California wine countryside. But Jack, a wine dummy, is not having it. He has his own plan of playboy adventure and dragged the reluctant Miles along in his adventure. So, the wine-tasting road trip turned sideways into something else, a delightful journey of life and tentatitve tender romance.
The romance between Miles and Maya (Virginia Madsen) is masterfully executed. Haunted by past marriage failures, they have both turned into passive mode in their respective romantic life. It was Jack who set them up and in their first gathering, there is this unavoidable awkwardness to start a topic. It helps that they both share a passion in wine and conveniently they launched into conversation sharing their passion on wines. The conversation gradually turned into something more personal and there comes the indecisiveness in Miles' part to 'make the move', and When he finally made it, they both turned unsure about what they are doing and calls it a day. All these are masterful sequence that we want to see it again and again to savor it, because it felt so personal. Alexander Payne understands how two lonely souls like Miles and Maya will progress on their relationship, and he filmed it in near perfection, not a false note, just all the right tone.
Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen all gave performances that when we view it, we can't think of any other actors who can substitute them to better effect.
'Sideways' could just turn up to be one of my all time favourite. It's the kind of film you want to see it again, even though you would have known its story and plot after the first viewing. You want to see it to savor the human experience, not to comprehend what happens in the plot. I have seen 2 films by Alexander Payne prior to this, 'Election' and 'About Schmidt'. They are both intelligent, great films. 'Sideways' topped them all, it is a wonderful, wonderful film.
Watch out for Alexander Payne for more great films.
* 'Sideways' was nominated for 5 Oscars in the 2005 Academy Awards, for best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, best supporting actor and best supporting actress. It won the best adapted screenplay Oscar for Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor's excellent screenplay.
Cast: Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, Sandra Oh
Director: Alexander Payne
Year of release: 2004
Miles Raymond (Paul Giamatti) is a middle-aged man who is stuck in a stagnant job teaching English in high school. His true ambition, which is to become a writer, is going nowhere with his novel struggling to get published. His marriage too, failed 2 years ago. Everyday, after work, he comes back to a empty, lonely home. He has a habit of dining alone in quiet corners of restaurants.
Romantic life? Miles has more or less gave up on that prospect. With a balding hair, bulging tummy and fading youth, Miles runs low on confidence on how he looks and his own perceived career failure, and he thinks that no women will find him attractive for that. So dejected is he that when an attractive waitress Maya (Virginia Madsen) whom he had secretly taken a liking on asked him what is he doing for the night, he dully said to her 'You know, I am kind of tired by the day's traveling so I guess I will just go back to the Motel room to sleep'.
No, he's not a homo. But he sometimes gets so sicked of his best friend Jack (Thomas Haden Church)'s persistence on setting him up for dates that he will say 'Alright, alright, I am a homo. Give me a gay confession letter and I'll sign it. Just don't push me any further!'
Thank God, he has a way to light up his depressed life with his whole-hearted passion on wine. A passion like this may seems like a trivial hobby to others, but writer-director Alexander Payne knows that to someone like Miles, it is by no way just a hobby. It is in fact, a critical element that keeps him going with his life.That shows incredibly sharp observation on human nature by the writer-director. That quality is also what makes 'Sideways' such a heartfelt, moving and wonderful film. It is road movie at its most inspiring. Payne understands that people like Miles is quite common among us. Hell, it can even be you or me. Majority of us, like it or not, lives an ordinary life. Many of us goes on with our monotonous life routine with ideals and dreams unfulfilled, and there comes a time when we start questioning the whole meaning of our lives and grow insecure over it. A classic case of mid life crisis and Payne (and his co-writer Jim Taylor) made a hero out of it, unconventional in every sense and devoid of any screen stereotype. Brilliant.
Mile's best friend Jack is getting married in a week's time. To celebrate Jack's last week of bachelor-hood, Miles treats him to a wine tasting road trip across California wine countryside. But Jack, a wine dummy, is not having it. He has his own plan of playboy adventure and dragged the reluctant Miles along in his adventure. So, the wine-tasting road trip turned sideways into something else, a delightful journey of life and tentatitve tender romance.
The romance between Miles and Maya (Virginia Madsen) is masterfully executed. Haunted by past marriage failures, they have both turned into passive mode in their respective romantic life. It was Jack who set them up and in their first gathering, there is this unavoidable awkwardness to start a topic. It helps that they both share a passion in wine and conveniently they launched into conversation sharing their passion on wines. The conversation gradually turned into something more personal and there comes the indecisiveness in Miles' part to 'make the move', and When he finally made it, they both turned unsure about what they are doing and calls it a day. All these are masterful sequence that we want to see it again and again to savor it, because it felt so personal. Alexander Payne understands how two lonely souls like Miles and Maya will progress on their relationship, and he filmed it in near perfection, not a false note, just all the right tone.
Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen all gave performances that when we view it, we can't think of any other actors who can substitute them to better effect.
'Sideways' could just turn up to be one of my all time favourite. It's the kind of film you want to see it again, even though you would have known its story and plot after the first viewing. You want to see it to savor the human experience, not to comprehend what happens in the plot. I have seen 2 films by Alexander Payne prior to this, 'Election' and 'About Schmidt'. They are both intelligent, great films. 'Sideways' topped them all, it is a wonderful, wonderful film.
Watch out for Alexander Payne for more great films.
* 'Sideways' was nominated for 5 Oscars in the 2005 Academy Awards, for best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, best supporting actor and best supporting actress. It won the best adapted screenplay Oscar for Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor's excellent screenplay.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Vengeance (復仇)
Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)
Cast: Johnny Hallyday, Anthony Wong, Simon Yam
Director: Johnnie To
Language: In English and Cantonese with English Subtitle
A Cannes 2009's official selection, Johnnie To's Vengeance is a stylish revenge thriller. Stylish, because it is filmed in noir-ish style, with atmospheric, moody locations in Macau and Hong Kong. The visual, especially the night images in Macau, is breathtakingly beautiful. This is a quality rarely seen in mediocre HK productions. For that matter, 'Vengeance' is a French-HK co-production, a refreshingly crafted genre piece.
The film opens with a brutal massacre; a french woman with her Chinese husband and children were gunned down in their Macau home.
Johnny Hallyday, a french rock legend, played the woman's father, Costello. He came hurriedly to Macau, in time to listen to his dying daughter's last words. She begged to her father for revenge.
Johnny Hallyday's Costello is one of the more memorable leading man's performance I have seen this year. Charismatic and assuring, he brings to the screen the kind of seen-it-all, done-it-all world-weariness. Costello was in fact, a weathered professional hitman who last used a gun 20 years ago. In the presence of dangerous men, Costello showed cool calmness.
But, he is after all, a stranger in a foreign land. So, he hired a trio of professional hitmen, played by Anthony Wong, Lam Suet and Lam Ka-tung. The trio were initally vowed by the attractive compensation offered by Costello, but eventually developed a sympathy and bonding with Costello, and sets out on a dangerous adventure to help him in his vengeance.
What I like about this film, apart from its stylish visuals and memorable acting performances, is the poignancy amidst the blood-splattering violence. The hitmen in this film, despite their profession, are professionals who operate with a code of honour. They will get the job done, doing their best to spare innocent lives. When the trio (Anthony Wong, Lam Suet and Lam Ka-tung) were finishing of a unfaithful mistress of their employer, they unexpectedly bumped into a stranger (Costello) at the Hotel aisle. They hesitated on what to do, although they all knew that they should kill Costello, because Costello had seen their face.
Or consider the other trio of hitmen, when they were executing their job to finish off Costello's daughter and family. There were children hiding in the cupboard, and one of the hitman is about to open it. 'Don't open!' his leader said to him. If the cupboard's door is not opened, the children would not have seen the hitman's face and thus their innocent lives would have been spared.
Consider also when Costello with his 3 buddies came confronting the 3 hitmen who have killed his family. A BBQ party was taking place with wives and children present. Costello and gang sat patiently waiting for the party to end and the wives and children to leave the scene. 'They don't have to see this', one of them said.
* Johnnie To's 'Vengeance' is an official selection (in competition) for the 2009 Cannes Film Festival
Cast: Johnny Hallyday, Anthony Wong, Simon Yam
Director: Johnnie To
Language: In English and Cantonese with English Subtitle
A Cannes 2009's official selection, Johnnie To's Vengeance is a stylish revenge thriller. Stylish, because it is filmed in noir-ish style, with atmospheric, moody locations in Macau and Hong Kong. The visual, especially the night images in Macau, is breathtakingly beautiful. This is a quality rarely seen in mediocre HK productions. For that matter, 'Vengeance' is a French-HK co-production, a refreshingly crafted genre piece.
The film opens with a brutal massacre; a french woman with her Chinese husband and children were gunned down in their Macau home.
Johnny Hallyday, a french rock legend, played the woman's father, Costello. He came hurriedly to Macau, in time to listen to his dying daughter's last words. She begged to her father for revenge.
Johnny Hallyday's Costello is one of the more memorable leading man's performance I have seen this year. Charismatic and assuring, he brings to the screen the kind of seen-it-all, done-it-all world-weariness. Costello was in fact, a weathered professional hitman who last used a gun 20 years ago. In the presence of dangerous men, Costello showed cool calmness.
But, he is after all, a stranger in a foreign land. So, he hired a trio of professional hitmen, played by Anthony Wong, Lam Suet and Lam Ka-tung. The trio were initally vowed by the attractive compensation offered by Costello, but eventually developed a sympathy and bonding with Costello, and sets out on a dangerous adventure to help him in his vengeance.
What I like about this film, apart from its stylish visuals and memorable acting performances, is the poignancy amidst the blood-splattering violence. The hitmen in this film, despite their profession, are professionals who operate with a code of honour. They will get the job done, doing their best to spare innocent lives. When the trio (Anthony Wong, Lam Suet and Lam Ka-tung) were finishing of a unfaithful mistress of their employer, they unexpectedly bumped into a stranger (Costello) at the Hotel aisle. They hesitated on what to do, although they all knew that they should kill Costello, because Costello had seen their face.
Or consider the other trio of hitmen, when they were executing their job to finish off Costello's daughter and family. There were children hiding in the cupboard, and one of the hitman is about to open it. 'Don't open!' his leader said to him. If the cupboard's door is not opened, the children would not have seen the hitman's face and thus their innocent lives would have been spared.
Consider also when Costello with his 3 buddies came confronting the 3 hitmen who have killed his family. A BBQ party was taking place with wives and children present. Costello and gang sat patiently waiting for the party to end and the wives and children to leave the scene. 'They don't have to see this', one of them said.
* Johnnie To's 'Vengeance' is an official selection (in competition) for the 2009 Cannes Film Festival
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Up
Rating: ** (out of 4)
Director: Pete Docter, Bob Peterson
This year edition of the Cannes Film Festival made a history, it was the frst time the film festival opened with an animated feature in its opening night. Critical acclaim has been tremendously good since then for 'Up', with a near unanimous praise from critics. It scores 97% at the tomato meter.
Due to this, my expectation was sky high, I was expecting a rousing good time as I did with 'Ratatouille'.
Yet, I felt underwhelmed throughout the screening, and remained so after the end of the screening.
Something's wrong with me?
I admit that I had not had a extensive viewing experience of animated features. My adult cynicism sometimes prevent me from enjoying a pure children fantasy, thus I found Robert Zemeckis's 'The Polar Express' to be boring. Yet, I did thoroughly enjoyed 'The Lion King', 'Monster Inc', 'Shrek', and above all, 'Ratatouille', which I counted as one of the top films of the year.
In 'Up', there are undeniably brilliant moments. The silent montage narrating the life story of Carl and Ellie Fredriksen from their marriage till the old age is inspirational, by far the film's most memorable moment for me.
The rest of the film, sorry to say, it's too much of a children fable that I struggled to believe in. The moment when Carl lifted his house by helium balloons, just when he was about to surrender himself to social welfare officials, is supposed to be a big, triumphal moment. Yet, strangely, it came about so muted in terms of emotional pay-off. Surely, it could have been better told.
Characterization is not great. The chubby boy Russell is more annoying than lovable to me, his adoration towards the Kevin the bird is hardly convincing and this dragged the second half Indiana Jones-like action adventure to be workman-like. Speaking of which, I would also note that while I appreciated the filmmakers' meticulous details on old Carl's physical constraint at the beginning of the film, the filmmakers seems got carried away when staging the action adventure, making old Carl turning into an all-action Indiana Jones-like figure.
'Up' is a meditation on childlike state of innocence, of unrealized childhood dream. I am somewhat doubtful if it appeals to the adult viewers. 'Ratatouille', on the other hand, works on a higher realm with weighty commentary on what art means in real life, and it did it brilliantly all within a package both adult and children can enjoy.
Curious to find out if I am the odd one who is disappointed with 'Up', I went to rottentomatoes.com and did find 2 prominent critics, Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal, and Stephanie Zacharek of salon.com, who were disappointed with it.
Still, we are the minority. This review is just my honest, personal opinion.
Friday, August 21, 2009
District 9
Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)
Director: Neil Blomkamp
Cast: Sharlto Copely, Jason Cope, David James
After my thrashing of 'Transformers 2', I have been looking forward to a perfect counterpart to that, something that works within similar subject matter and aim to achieve the same goal, that is, to entertain, and yet did it with flying colours. Here it is, 'District 9' is one such movie.
A giant space ship hovered over Johannesburgh. Inside the space ship, close to a million of aliens were starving to death. Sympathetic South African decided to relocate the aliens to 'District 9', a slum-like location not unlike a refugee camp.
The aliens are called 'prawns' by the human, because that's what they resemble. The residents of Johannesburgh eventually grew wary of the aliens who live like gangsters, and they want them out. The goverment decides to relocate the aliens to District 10, a concerntration camp out of town. The dangerous relocation operation is outsourced to a private security firm called Multinational United (MNU).
Despite the intriguing sci-fi premise that evokes parallel to our treatment of human refugee and the racial segregation policy under apartheid, the movie is really more interested about being a standard fugitive action thrill ride. The relocation operation is handed by a dedicated and honest agent named Vikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copely). Considerting the hostility of the aliens towards the eviction order, the operation is hardly lucrative business to MNU. What draws MNU to the job, is the prospect of harnessing the secret of the biological based alien weaponary, which is not operatable by human, only the aliens are able to operate them.
Something went wrong during the operation, and Vikus is turning into a prawn, and find himself able to operate the alien weapons. Both MNU and Nigerian gangsters set out to hunt him down as a key asset to uncover the secret of the alien weapons. Vikus turned fugitive and took refugee in District 9, and foud an unlikely ally in a prawn named Christopher Johnson and his son.
'District 9' isn't exactly a philosophical science fiction. It has an intelligent sci-fi premise that serves as a parable for some social commentary, but ultimately it is a formulaic mad-operation-goes-wrong-and-good-guy-turns-fugitive type of standard piece, as in Michael Bay's 'The Island'. It is also meant to be an action-packed entertainment with special effect as the centre piece, as in 'Transformers 2', but what a huge difference in terms of quality. 'District 9' has an intelligent sci-fi premise, a documentary-like narrative style that lends realism to the film, a protagonist in Vikus whom we believe in and care for, an emotional core in Vikus's relationship with Christopher the alien and his son, and awesome special effects. It is quite a complete package, scoring in each of the departments. A special mention to the special effects, that's what special effects ought to be; visually fascinating and felt necessary in the context of the story, a striking contrast as compared to Transformers 2's excessive, noisy, incomprehensible, seonsors-numbing special effects.
The plot may be formulaic, and the material may be mostly standard genre piece. That's the kind of film producer Peter Jackson and director Neil Blomkamp want to make and have made to very good effect. The lightness in its substance is hardly a problem in view of the skillful execution. Throughly entertaining and a rare commercial gem.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Overheard (窃听风云)
Rating: **1/2 (out of 4)
Cast: Lau Ching Wan, Louis Koo, Daniel Wu
Director: Alan Mak, Felix Chong
Language: Cantonese with English subtitle
From the screenwriting partnership that brought us 'Infernal Affairs' (无间道), 'Overheard' tells the story of an operation by the Hong Kong Police Force Commercial Crime Bureau to infiltrate internal communication of a listed corporation, Feng Hua International, whose directors were suspected of being involved in insider trading. The operation, led by a trio of seasoned policemen, Inspector Leung (Lau Ching Wan), Yeung (Louis Koo) and Lam (Daniel Wu) , installed cutting-edge interception devices within office premise of Feng Hua International to monitor its internal communication.
The terminally ill Yeung is short of money. When he and Lam came across an insider information during their monitoring routine, the temptation of making some quick bucks proves to strong to be resisted. The alert team lead, Leung, spot his subordinates' action and tried to stop them, but even his value of integrity wavered in the moment filled with temptation and dilemma.
They crossed the line, seemingly innocent at the beginning. However, each subsequent action to cover up their crime brought them deeper and deeper into trouble, until it is no longer possible to turn back and say 'I did it'. In Inspector Leung own words, 'If we want to cheat, cheat until the very end'.
The filmmakers, Alan Mak and Felix Chong, tried to tell the story with a heart. The private life of the main protagonists, particularly Leung and Yeung, is given substantial treatment, this is a film who cares about its characters.
All these are commendable. I, however, have a thing or two to say about some of the film's flaws.
Firstly, the love triangle involving Inspector Leung is distracting, and unnecessarily complicates the story. Secondly, the plot, fairly convincing in the beginning, starts to fall apart towards the 4th quarter of the film, descending into a series of implausible twist and turn of events, leading to a finale that is overly sensationalized, it felt contrived.
Why, isn't that the very same flaws that prevented Neil Jordan and Jodie Foster's 'The Brave One' to become a memorable film that it ought to be?
The story arc, where it all began as a fairly innocent criminal act which subsequently spiralled deeper and deeper with each subsequent act to conceal the criminal deed, has been told far more effectively in a couple of outstanding films I have watched, I recommend Sam Raimi's 'A Simple Plan' and Sidney Lumet's 'Before the Devil Knows You're Dead'.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Public Enemies
Rating: *** (out of 4)
Cast: Johnny Depp, Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard
Director: Michael Mann
John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) made a very interesting gangster. He robbed banks, lots of banks, and revealed his occupation straight to the girl he was trying to court on their first encounter. A criminal who doesn't lie? Interesting.
He is a man of principle, living by his code of ethics. He took the bankers money but turned away a frightened bank customer who handed him his money. 'I hate kidnapping, the public hate kidnapping'. A bank robber who cares about his public image? Interesting.
He is a man of his words, especially to his lady. He promised Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) that he will take care of her, and kept his words, even if that meant he had to come right into a troop of federal agents led by Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) in order to get her away. A romantic gangster? Interesting.
All the above, are apparently based on facts, not sensationalized. Yes, Michael Mann's 'Public Enemies' is a faithful adaptation of the book 'Public Enemies: America's Greatest Crime Wave and the Birth of the FBI, 1933-34' by Bryab Burrough, which chronicles the 13 months between the day Dillinger escaped from the prison and the day he was shot dead, a period he mainly spent robbing banks. So faithful that Mann did not try to pretend that he knows what was driving Dillinger to his bank-robbing spree. The fact is, nobody knows, and probably nobody ever will.
Mann stubbornly stayed true to that, refusing to dramatize Dillinger's criminal life by providing an explanation on why he did that.
Being honest and sincere is often seen as a virtue in film making. But for once, it felt like a handicap in Mann's 'Public Enemies'. I tried to understand why; perhaps it is because an incredible feat like a 13-year bank robbing spree does need a subtext in order to be convincingly told.
In Mann's 'Collateral', a much better film, Mann too gave us something similar; a cold-blooded professional hit man played by Tom Cruise, who get the job done with no remorse. In that film too, little subtext was given to explain what's driving the hit man all along. However, the lack of subtext was hardly a problem in that film, because the film basically told what happened within that night, a much limited time scope as compare to a 13-year period, so we just ride along witnessing the event unfold on that night.
For once, I wish for the filmmaker to embrace the artistic liberty to dramatize actual fact in order to provide an emotional core to the film, even if that means hypothesizing a theory on what's driving Dillinger all along.
So, ironically, Mann's deliberate choice to stay faithful and honest has somewhat limit this otherwise technically impressive gangster flick. It lacks an emotional core.
Other than that, Mann's 'Public Enemies' is a great-looking period piece. Impressively shot by Mann, with awesome shoot-up scenes, and a stellar casts who gave fine acting performances, all set amidst a stunning art direction that brought depression era America back to life.
It may lack a heart, but visually and technically, it is worth the time and ticket price.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
My Tribute to Yasmin Ahmad
It is with deep sorrow that, when I was writing this, acclaimed Malaysian film director, Yasmin Ahmad, had left us forever. She suffered a stroke and passed away on 11.25 pm Saturday, 25th July 2009Yasmin was one of the finest filmmakers Malaysia has ever produced. Her films include Rabun (2003), Sepet (2004), Gubra (2006), Mukhsin (2006), Muallaf (2008) and Talentime (2009). She won a couple of international awards for her films.
Yasmin's films are a delight to watch. She was arguably the first Malaysian filmmaker who is bold enough to paint a honest and sincere portrayal of the multi-racial Malaysian society, something which had been deemed too sensitive all this while.
She exhibited a sharp observation on humanity, the way human talk and interact. In her films, her characters will talk and interact just in a way they will talk in real life, a level of honesty and sincerity that is rarely seen in Malaysian films. She also injected a sense of humour that is heart warming to watch, and made her characters extremely likable and believable.
Her films are often exquisite portraits of love and sentimentality. Her films reminded us that true religious faith is about compassion and tolerance, rather than deviating religious faith to a level of hypocrisy, as certain quarters have done.
Her 'Gubra' is one of my all time favourite, one of the best film I have seen.
On May 2009, much to my surprise and honour, Yasmin joined this blog as a follower.
Losing her is painful.
Always cheerful and optimistic, Yasmin would not be happy to see us grieved over her departures. Yasmin loves films, let's move on and continue making, watching, supporting and discussing about films, we would be continuing and championing her passion in that way.
Kak Yasmin, your spirit will live on!
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Transfomers: Revenge of the Fallen
Rating: * (out of 4)Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, John Turturro
Director: Michael Bay
With 'Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen', Michael Bay out-done his trademark excessiveness to a new level; excessive length (149 minutes), excessive number of robots, excessive battles, excessive noise, excessive explosion. It wouldn't be a problem if they are in the film for a reason, but unfortunately they don't. All the excessiveness only added confusion and made much of the film incomprehensible.
Incomprehensible, so many aspects of it.
The battles; with movement so frantic and chaotic that I did not get a visual sense of what's going on for much of the time. I didn't get a sense of who's fighting who, and what eventually killed the good robot, or the bad robot, or whoever.
The robots; so many of them, are bewildering. I never got to know who's the no. 1 bad robot. Aren't the bad robot all look the same? Oh yeah, I do know Optimus Prime, and Bumblebee, the good robots, and Prime provided the only thin emotional core that prevent me from falling asleep, when he was killed and then subsequently resurrected.
The human characters exists mainly so that someone will be there to run slow-mo from explosions, and to provide corny dialogue that is unintentionally funny, or intentionally funny moments that is more annoying than funny.
Prime: 'Any last words?' (Pointing a gun to bad robot's head)
Bad Robot: '......The fallen will rise!'
Soldier (in a awkwardly serious expression): 'Oh no, that doesn't sound good'
I burst out laughing. Sorry, I know it is not supposed to be funny, but I can't help it.
There will be people who say that I don't get it. 'It's all about sensory entertainment' They say.
No, that's not entertainment. That's sensory overkill, a torturing experience that numbed my sensor. Special effects will only be entertaining if they come with a context, or at the very least comprehensible. How can I be entertained when I can't even have a visual sense on what's happening on screen?
For the record, I did enjoy the 'Transformers I'. At the very least, it has a serviceable plot, a fresh 'ooh...ahh' sensory effect, and excessiveness (moderate by comparison) which does not add much to confusion. It is an example of a 'dumb, but fun' pop corn movie. 'Transfomers: Revenge of the Fallen' is dumber, not fun, and confusing.
Am I regret seeing this film? Yes...err no. Bad film like this does serve a purpose. It makes recent great film like 'Departures' looks all the more outstanding by comparison.
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Forever Enthralled (梅兰芳)
Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)Director: Chen Kaige
Cast: Leon Lai, Zhang Zhiyi
In Mandarin with English subtitle
Chen Kaige has not made a good film for a long time.
In 1993, his 'Farewell My Concubine' (霸王别姬) won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It is arguably one of the pinnacle achievement in Chinese cinema.
Since then, his films has been uneven, ranging from the middle road, odd, to simply awful. His 1996 'Temptress Moon' (风月) is visually beautiful, but saddled with baffling relationship between its characters. Year 2005's 'The Promise' (无极) is simply awful; a messy and laughable attempt at fantasy epic.
'Forever Enthralled' is a revisiting old material of sort, its subject matter, a biopic of Peking Opera performer Mei Lanfang,
is bound to beg comparison to the masterful 'Farewell My Concubine'. It is on this familiar ground that Chen Kaige rediscovered his form.
I see 'Forever Enthralled' as Chen's homage to artists who have given their life for the art, their sacrifice, their single-minded obsession, the risk they took for artistic innovation, their giving up of true love for career sake.
Indeed, fame comes with a price. 'Mei Lanfang does not belong to you, he does not belong to me either. He belongs to the audience' said Fu Zhifang, Mei's wife, to Meng Xiaodong (Zhang Zhiyi), Mei's lover.
Chen Kaige's homage to artistic sacrifice is told through the eyes of Mei Lanfang, his wife Fu Zhifang and Qiu Rubai, a high ranking government legal officer, who gives up his legal career to become Mei's manager, for the love of Mei's art. Qiu the manager will stop at nothing to protect Mei's artistic career, a symbol that represents obsession to the art.
The first act tells the story of the younger Mei, who launched a painful artistic duel with an old Peking Opera master he admired. Mei took bold risk to reinvent the art, and as a result defeated the old master in the duel to become the new king of the art.
Leon Lai plays the older Mei Lanfang in the next act. Now an established star, he met Meng Xiaodong (Zhang Zhiyi), a lover he eventually had to painfully leave behind for the sake of the art, as she is seen as a distraction to Mei's career. Their affair feels a tad forced and is probably a weaker link in the film.
As in 'Farewell My Concubine', this film crosses decades and plays at the backdrop of major historical events. While 'Farewell My Concubine' made a substantial historical statement with its climatic scenes set at the period of The Cultural Revolution, 'Forever Enthralled', lighter in its political tone, sets its final act during the days of the Japanese occupation of China, focusing on Mei's refusal to perform for the Japanese army.
'Forever Enthralled' is Chen Kaige's tribute to the sacrifice of artists, a fascinating and effective one at that.
* 'Forever Enthralled' is an official selection (in competition) for the 2009 Berlin International Film Festival.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Departures (Okuribito)
Rating: **** (out of 4)
Director: Yojiro Takita
Cast: Masahiro Motoki, Ryoko Hirosue, Tsutomu Yamazaki, Kimiko Yo
Language: In Japanese with English subtitle
What a beautiful film. Watching it, I smiled, I shed tears. Who would have thought that a story about a 'encoffineer', a type of professional who prepares deceased bodies before burial in a traditional Japanese funeral ritual, would be this emotionally involving? The film is sentimental, yet never melodramatic. Its bittersweet story is told in a subtle, sincere and down-to-earth way.
Daigo Kobayashi(Masahiro Motoki) was a aspiring classical musician playing cello in an orchestra in Tokyo. One day, out of a sudden, he found himself out of job as the orchestra was disbanded. Dejected, he decided to leave Tokyo to go back to his hometown. Thank God, he has his loyal, lovely wife Mika(Ryoko Hirosue), who cheerfully ride alongside with him, over this depressing ordeal.
Desperate for a job, Daigo came across a classified ad hiring for 'departures'. Thinking that it may be a travel agency, Daigo promptly turned up for interview at the company. The boss, Mr. Sasaki, wryly pointed out that the Ad is a misprint, it should read as 'The departed', and explained that the job deals with corpses. Before Daigo could reach for the door, Sasaki stuffed a generous sum of salary advance to Daigo. Daigo relented.
Despite a difficult beginning, Daigo grew steadily in his new career. He gradually saw the dignity of his new job, as the family of the deceased were grateful to his trade. However, his friends looked down at him, for doing a job nobody else want to do. Even his wife, Mika, disapproved of his strange job.
The director, Yojiro Takita, made a life affirming statement, ironically through a story dealing a lot with death. Death, as visualized in this film, is inevitable. Through the meticulously executed ritual of 'encoffinment', death looked dignified, as opposed to our common perception of horror and fear. If you are not dead, then you are living the life, with its ups and downs, with its unpredictability, and you should live it with dignity as well.
As a comparison, David Fincher's 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button', too, is a film dealing with the subject of life and death, but I found it gimmicky with its premise. 'Departures' is a sincere counterpart to that, and it is masterfully crafted, lending it with a mood and tone that is touching and engaging. Even when Takita risked sentimentality to extreme level, such as the scene having Daigo playing the cello in a lush paddy field countryside, it felt so appropriate.
Some may have criticized the predictability in its story. Indeed. With a story this plain, simple and predictable, it affects us emotionally, it moves us to tears, it brings out the smiles from our heart. Isn't that incredible?
* 'Departures' won the best foreign language film Oscar in the 2009 Academy Awards
Director: Yojiro Takita
Cast: Masahiro Motoki, Ryoko Hirosue, Tsutomu Yamazaki, Kimiko Yo
Language: In Japanese with English subtitle
What a beautiful film. Watching it, I smiled, I shed tears. Who would have thought that a story about a 'encoffineer', a type of professional who prepares deceased bodies before burial in a traditional Japanese funeral ritual, would be this emotionally involving? The film is sentimental, yet never melodramatic. Its bittersweet story is told in a subtle, sincere and down-to-earth way.
Daigo Kobayashi(Masahiro Motoki) was a aspiring classical musician playing cello in an orchestra in Tokyo. One day, out of a sudden, he found himself out of job as the orchestra was disbanded. Dejected, he decided to leave Tokyo to go back to his hometown. Thank God, he has his loyal, lovely wife Mika(Ryoko Hirosue), who cheerfully ride alongside with him, over this depressing ordeal.
Desperate for a job, Daigo came across a classified ad hiring for 'departures'. Thinking that it may be a travel agency, Daigo promptly turned up for interview at the company. The boss, Mr. Sasaki, wryly pointed out that the Ad is a misprint, it should read as 'The departed', and explained that the job deals with corpses. Before Daigo could reach for the door, Sasaki stuffed a generous sum of salary advance to Daigo. Daigo relented.
Despite a difficult beginning, Daigo grew steadily in his new career. He gradually saw the dignity of his new job, as the family of the deceased were grateful to his trade. However, his friends looked down at him, for doing a job nobody else want to do. Even his wife, Mika, disapproved of his strange job.
The director, Yojiro Takita, made a life affirming statement, ironically through a story dealing a lot with death. Death, as visualized in this film, is inevitable. Through the meticulously executed ritual of 'encoffinment', death looked dignified, as opposed to our common perception of horror and fear. If you are not dead, then you are living the life, with its ups and downs, with its unpredictability, and you should live it with dignity as well.
As a comparison, David Fincher's 'The Curious Case of Benjamin Button', too, is a film dealing with the subject of life and death, but I found it gimmicky with its premise. 'Departures' is a sincere counterpart to that, and it is masterfully crafted, lending it with a mood and tone that is touching and engaging. Even when Takita risked sentimentality to extreme level, such as the scene having Daigo playing the cello in a lush paddy field countryside, it felt so appropriate.
Some may have criticized the predictability in its story. Indeed. With a story this plain, simple and predictable, it affects us emotionally, it moves us to tears, it brings out the smiles from our heart. Isn't that incredible?
* 'Departures' won the best foreign language film Oscar in the 2009 Academy Awards
Friday, June 19, 2009
Drag Me to Hell
Rating: *** (out of 4)Cast: Alison Lohman, Justin Long
Director: Sam Raimi
Sam Raimi's 'Drag Me to Hell' is an interesting entry to the horror genre. It has repeated loud shock that I'll often dismiss as cheap scare tactics in lesser horror films. It has special effects so over-the-top that it is physically impossible. It has relentless gore and splatter that is puke inducing, and it has a story so simple that it is essentially a B-grade material; read: Christine (Alison Lohman), a loan officer, has offended an old gypsy woman by denying her an extension to her home loan. In revenge, the gypsy woman places a curse on Christine that tranforms her life into a living hell.
Attributes as such would often be critisized as flaws in mediocre forror films. However, you know what? All these somehow works in 'Drag Me to Hell'.
Yes, I know I have an explanation to do, and I'll do that using an analogy. Let's say you go to a Chinese restaurant and order stir-fried beef. The beef dish, when it is served, must be fully cooked. Anything less than fully cooked, you are perfectly entitled to ask for a refund and curse the chef.
On the other hand, if you go to a western steakhouse and order steak done medium rare, you can't say that the beef dish is bad just because it is not fully cooked. Someone with a mature understanding of cuisine will understand that a Chinese stir-fried beef and a steak done medium rare are two different types of cuisine, and hence they should be judged differently. You can't use the same 'not fully cooked' argument to judge them.
Likewise, someone with a mature understanding of cinema would know that 'Drag Me to Hell' as compared to, say 'The Exorcist', are different type of horror films. 'The Exorcist', a classic in its own right, is the kind of horror that works on realism and mood. Unrealistic over-the-top visual effects and repeated loud shock would have spoilt it.
'Drag Me to Hell', on the other hand, is an exercise in irony. It is sometimes scary, yet funny at the same time. Scare and humour are like fire and water, totally opposite. Yet, Sam Raimi makes the two opposing elements works in the film. Watching it, I was genuinely scared in some of its moments. Even the repeated loud shock which I often find annoying in lesser horror films, genuinely jolted me from my seat for a few times. Yet, right after I recover from the shock, I realized the absurdity of it all and started laughing. My fellow audience must have felt the same as their emotional reaction sensed by my ear takes the form of scream, followed by yikes (disgust), and finally followed by giggles.
'Drag Me to Hell' isn't that kind of horror that takes itself too seriously, it is meant to be a campy thrill ride. So, complaining that its visual effect is unrealistic or its gore and repeated loud shock is 'cheap' will be akin to complaining that your medium rare steak is not fully cooked.
Sam Raimi and Alison Lohman gave us a main protoganist, Christine, we can believe and relate to. It isn't a soulless cardboard character like in so many of the lesser horror films. We like her and we care for her. In the beginning, Christine wemt against her own conscience in making a tough decision to deny a loan extension to a helpless old woman, driven by her desperation to impress her boss in order to gain a promotion. In the end, Christine was in a moral dillema when she was told that she could easily pass on her suffering to another person by giving the cursed button away as a gift to that person. To whom she should give it to? Was it the right thing to do? How humane, how nicely done, and how we can't help but to connect to her emotionally, however B-grade or simple her story may be.
Sam, good to see you back at your 'The Evil Dead' roots.
Friday, June 5, 2009
Solaris
Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)
Cast: George Clooney, Natascha McElhone, Jeremy Davies
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Year of release: 2002
Something has gone terribly wrong to a space mission to planet Solaris. The crew of 4 has cut off communication with Earth, and although the space station is equipped with advanced AI that will send them back to Earth automatically, they refused to come back.
Back on Earth, psychologist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) received a SOS call from Gibarian, the crew's commander, who is also Chris' close friend. In his video message to Chris, Gibarian pleaded to Chris to come to planet Solaris, saying that Chris is the best candidate to be able to help them. What has happened? the commander wouldn't say, except that it is totally bizarre, and Chris will know for himself upon arriving there.
As Chris arrived at the space station orbiting planet Solaris, he's shocked to find that Gibarian, the commander has committed suicide, along with another crew. The 2 surviving crew, Snow (Jeremy Davies) and Dr Gordon (Viola Davis) exhibits severe distress, as if something has scared the hell out of them.
What has happened? Still, Chris got no meaningful answers from the 2 surviving crew, but he is about to find out for himself on his first night on the space station, when he fall asleep. He dreamed of his dead wife, how they first met, and the tender moments they shared together. Chris awoke from his dream when a familiar soft hand stroked his face gently, and to his great bewilderment, there she is, Rheya (Natascha McElhone), his dead wife, lying besides him.
Apparently, all the crews, and now Chris, has had strange 'visitor' like this, someone dearest to them, someone they missed. There seems to be a strange force from planet Solaris, that resurrects or create a copy of that 'someone'. But there's a catch: in Rheya's (or her copy) own words, she has memories, but she doesn't remember experiencing these things.
The 'copy' is a physical flesh-and-blood manifestation of of what the other person know about them, in Chris case, the Rheya copy is the materialization of his perception of his dead wife. We came to know that in real life, Chris's relationship with Rheya ended tragically with Rheya committed suicide. And here it is, the Rheya's copy is just as suicidal, because in Chris mind, his dead wife is suicidal.
But the real Rheya in real life may not be suicidal, the copy behaved that way precisely because that's Chris' perception on Rheya.
Steven Soderbergh's 'Solaris' has the kind of intelligent science fiction premise that does not have to resort to portraying extra-terrestrial being as ugly monsters. Having said that, the sci-fi element is just a premise, though an intriguing and essential one. Soderbergh is more interested about human psychology, that makes his version of 'Solaris' a psychological drama set in a intriguing sci-fi premise.
It delves into the very nature of human emotion, how we can fall in love to not only the real someone, but also to our idea, perception of someone. We fall in love to characters in novels, films. We can also be emotionally connected to some famous great people that we do not know personally, apart from what we do know about them based on information from news and writing. In our rational mind, We know that the film and novel characters are not real, but emotionally we develop love and adoration towards them. In our rational mind, we are aware that the 'real' famous great people may not be what we perceive them to be, but that doesn't stop us from connecting to them emotionally.
In 'Solaris', Chris knows that Rheya in the space station is not real, but emotionally he can't help but to accept her, seeing that as his chance for a redemption, an atonement to his deep guilt and regret, for what he has done to the real her in real life. Is it real or fake? Are we alive or dead? It doesn't matter anymore, as long as our mind believes it to be real.
In the closing moment of the film:
Chris: 'Am I alive, or dead?'
Rheya: 'We don't have to think like that anymore'
Based on a Stanislaw Lem's novel, it was first filmed by Russian master filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky in 1972. I haven't seen the Tarkovsky's version, it is said to be a sci-fi classic. Now Soderbergh has remade it in his own version, into a film that challenges his viewers, a films that lingers on your mind for days after you have watched it. It is paced slowly, a wise decision that offers its viewers with rooms and spaces to ponder upon the profound idea in the film. Its tone is quiet, again a wise decision as it fits the introspective nature of the film. It is ambiguous, perhaps a tad overly so, many will find the urge to see it again for a second time after the first viewing.
Slow, quiet, ambiguous, not a recipe that will sell a lot of tickets. But Soderbergh's 'Solaris' is after all, a niche offering that appeals to the more intellectually inclined viewers. Steven Soderbergh is a very talented filmmaker whoose projects alternates between the more mainstream ('Erin Brokovich', the 'Ocean Eleven' franchise) and the more obscure and challenging ('Traffic', 'Solaris', 'Sex, lies, and videotape', 'Out of Sight'). I highly appreciate a film like 'Solaris' where he is in a mood for challenges, and refused to succumb to commercial demand.
* Note: Steven Soderbergh's Solaris was a official selection (in competition) for the 2003 Berlin International Film Festival
Cast: George Clooney, Natascha McElhone, Jeremy Davies
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Year of release: 2002
Something has gone terribly wrong to a space mission to planet Solaris. The crew of 4 has cut off communication with Earth, and although the space station is equipped with advanced AI that will send them back to Earth automatically, they refused to come back.
Back on Earth, psychologist Chris Kelvin (George Clooney) received a SOS call from Gibarian, the crew's commander, who is also Chris' close friend. In his video message to Chris, Gibarian pleaded to Chris to come to planet Solaris, saying that Chris is the best candidate to be able to help them. What has happened? the commander wouldn't say, except that it is totally bizarre, and Chris will know for himself upon arriving there.
As Chris arrived at the space station orbiting planet Solaris, he's shocked to find that Gibarian, the commander has committed suicide, along with another crew. The 2 surviving crew, Snow (Jeremy Davies) and Dr Gordon (Viola Davis) exhibits severe distress, as if something has scared the hell out of them.
What has happened? Still, Chris got no meaningful answers from the 2 surviving crew, but he is about to find out for himself on his first night on the space station, when he fall asleep. He dreamed of his dead wife, how they first met, and the tender moments they shared together. Chris awoke from his dream when a familiar soft hand stroked his face gently, and to his great bewilderment, there she is, Rheya (Natascha McElhone), his dead wife, lying besides him.
Apparently, all the crews, and now Chris, has had strange 'visitor' like this, someone dearest to them, someone they missed. There seems to be a strange force from planet Solaris, that resurrects or create a copy of that 'someone'. But there's a catch: in Rheya's (or her copy) own words, she has memories, but she doesn't remember experiencing these things.
The 'copy' is a physical flesh-and-blood manifestation of of what the other person know about them, in Chris case, the Rheya copy is the materialization of his perception of his dead wife. We came to know that in real life, Chris's relationship with Rheya ended tragically with Rheya committed suicide. And here it is, the Rheya's copy is just as suicidal, because in Chris mind, his dead wife is suicidal.
But the real Rheya in real life may not be suicidal, the copy behaved that way precisely because that's Chris' perception on Rheya.
Steven Soderbergh's 'Solaris' has the kind of intelligent science fiction premise that does not have to resort to portraying extra-terrestrial being as ugly monsters. Having said that, the sci-fi element is just a premise, though an intriguing and essential one. Soderbergh is more interested about human psychology, that makes his version of 'Solaris' a psychological drama set in a intriguing sci-fi premise.
It delves into the very nature of human emotion, how we can fall in love to not only the real someone, but also to our idea, perception of someone. We fall in love to characters in novels, films. We can also be emotionally connected to some famous great people that we do not know personally, apart from what we do know about them based on information from news and writing. In our rational mind, We know that the film and novel characters are not real, but emotionally we develop love and adoration towards them. In our rational mind, we are aware that the 'real' famous great people may not be what we perceive them to be, but that doesn't stop us from connecting to them emotionally.
In 'Solaris', Chris knows that Rheya in the space station is not real, but emotionally he can't help but to accept her, seeing that as his chance for a redemption, an atonement to his deep guilt and regret, for what he has done to the real her in real life. Is it real or fake? Are we alive or dead? It doesn't matter anymore, as long as our mind believes it to be real.
In the closing moment of the film:
Chris: 'Am I alive, or dead?'
Rheya: 'We don't have to think like that anymore'
Based on a Stanislaw Lem's novel, it was first filmed by Russian master filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky in 1972. I haven't seen the Tarkovsky's version, it is said to be a sci-fi classic. Now Soderbergh has remade it in his own version, into a film that challenges his viewers, a films that lingers on your mind for days after you have watched it. It is paced slowly, a wise decision that offers its viewers with rooms and spaces to ponder upon the profound idea in the film. Its tone is quiet, again a wise decision as it fits the introspective nature of the film. It is ambiguous, perhaps a tad overly so, many will find the urge to see it again for a second time after the first viewing.
Slow, quiet, ambiguous, not a recipe that will sell a lot of tickets. But Soderbergh's 'Solaris' is after all, a niche offering that appeals to the more intellectually inclined viewers. Steven Soderbergh is a very talented filmmaker whoose projects alternates between the more mainstream ('Erin Brokovich', the 'Ocean Eleven' franchise) and the more obscure and challenging ('Traffic', 'Solaris', 'Sex, lies, and videotape', 'Out of Sight'). I highly appreciate a film like 'Solaris' where he is in a mood for challenges, and refused to succumb to commercial demand.
* Note: Steven Soderbergh's Solaris was a official selection (in competition) for the 2003 Berlin International Film Festival
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Angels and Demons
Rating: *** (out of 4)Director: Ron Howard
'Angels and Demons' is the kind of fast-paced thriller with a plot loaded with twist and turns, that if you care to think about the plot more deeply after the film ends, you are bound to realize about its implausibility and discover plot holes.
But while you are watching it, it's unlikely that you will notice it and you will in fact be, glued to your seat and enjoy the ride.
There's no time to think, a time bomb is ticking, and we need to save the world...ooops, the Vatican.
The Catholic Church has just lost a respected and beloved Pope. In the interim period while the Cardinals are electing the next Pope, an ancient secret organization, the Illuminati resurfaced, with a vengeance.
The Illuminati was once a church faction who was pro-science. The church leadership at that time, did not like that, probably see them as a political threat and so persecuted them, and drove them underground.
The Illuminati has now resurfaced for revenge, and their game plan is over-the-top: kidnap the 4 favourite candidates to succeed the Pope, threaten to execute them one-by-one by 8,9,10 and 11pm, and finally blow off the Vatican with a time bomb by 12 mid night.
So, how do the Vatican cope with that? Reluctantly, they turned to someone they don't really like, Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks), renowned symbollogist of Harvard University.
Poor Professor Langdon was dragged into a cat-and-mouse chase again as a innocent third party, this time racing against time to prevent 4 separate murders at 8,9,10,11 pm respectively, at 4 separate locations, and a time bomb to be defused at 12 mid night. Well, at least he had a companion of the beautiful Vitorria (Ayelet Zurer), the Italian scientist whose research material was stolen to be used as the time bomb.
While we are thrown into frantic chase, we sense that something fishy is going on in the Vatican church. Conspiracy? Insider Jobs? Sorry, I can't reveal any further about the plot or else I will be shot at for giving away spoilers.
The whole production is competently executed, something we have come to expect from a partnership of director Ron Howard and Tom Hanks. Fast-paced, taut, intriguing, occasional funny moments, and I actually appreciate the action sequence and explosion in the film, the very things which I have said some not-so-pleasant things about in my review on 'X-men Origins' and 'Star Trek'. Here, the explosion and action sequence felt necessary in the context of the plot.
The pace is simply so fast that you can't help but to simply ride along with the adventure, with no time to notice some of the film's flaws, like Professor Langdon's lack of personality and the plot holes.
Really, it is a more than descent piece of entertainment, and all is forgiven (How much do we know about Professor Langdon as a person after seeing the film? Never mind that)
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Star Trek
Rating: ** (out of 4)Director: J.J. Abrams
The annual Hollywood summer releases are not something I particularly looking forward to. Well, I was during my teenage days, but after years of film-viewing, I have grown weary of that. The summer blockbusters often look like they all came from an assembly lines, like a product made from a formulaic template, with lots of compulsory loud and explosive action and special effects.
And Hollywood's lack of idea must have reached an impoverished state when you see sequels and prequels dominated the scene.
I have nothing against commercial movies. They can be skillfully made through sheer craftsmanship. 2008's 'Iron Man' is a good example, it is formulaic but it is fun, we love and care about the characters and it's a great entertainment. 2009's 'The Dark Knight' is on another class of its own, it is a revolutionary entry to its genre.
But those are rather rare occurrence.
2009's summer season began with 'X-men Origins: Wolverine', and I called it 'mediocre at best'. The second blockbuster release of the season is yet(!) another back-to-origin attempt to revive a tired franchise.
I am not a trekkies and have hardly watched any Star Trek movies or TV series before. This material, is more space opera than science fiction. True science fiction films are thought provoking and philosophical, and the science in the films is treated intellectually, at least at a pseudo-science level. Examples of true science fiction films are Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey', Andrei Tarkovsky's 'Solaris' (as well as Steven Soderbergh's remade version), and Danny Boyle's 'Sunshine'.
Materials like Star Wars are no Sci-fi, they are space opera, there is hardly any science in it, they are essentially action movies set in a space background. This is not to say that one is more superior than the other, they are just 2 different types of movies, and they serve different purposes.
I thought the old Star Trek is part sci-fi, and part space opera. But never mind that, I don't know for sure. But I am pretty sure that the new 'Star Trek' is pure space opera.
If 'X-men Origins: Wolverine' was soulless, devoid of humanity, 'Star Trek' actually had potential to score in that area. The initial rivalry between Kirk (Chris Pine) and Spock (Zachary Quinto), the former represents instinct, the latter represents rational reasoning, that eventually develops into a formidable partnership, is a potentially fascinating story arc.
Fire vs water, positive vs negative, ying vs yang, and they eventually harmonized into great effect. Hmm...that would have been interesting.
But alas, like so many of the summer blockbusters, director J.J. Abrams is more interested in showcasing loud explosion and expensive special effects. The personality of Kirk and Spock and the development of their relationship was only given a rather superficial treatment, giving way to the 'quota': loud explosion, space ships firing at each other, combat.
Really, what is supposed to be interesting was watered down by all those 'seen it all' action and special effects.
I wish for the film to explore the personality of Kirk and Spock more substantially, perhaps by putting them into situation that challenge the very quality that they represent for: instinct and rational reasoning, and how their eventual partnership complement each other's strength and weakness and thus overcome the challenges.
Anyway, I have to remind myself that this is space opera, after all. So, action rules.
* Note: 'Star Trek' scored an astonishingly good 95% in rottentomatoes.com. The tomato meter is my favourite tool to gauge how good a film is. It is usually reliable. This time though, personally I find it baffling to see such a high score.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tarantino's 'Inglourious Basterds' opened at Cannes 2009 to mixed reviews
Quentin Tarantino's highly anticipated World War II drama, 'Inglourious Basterds' had its premier in Cannes 2009 just days ago, in what was arguably the most eagerly-awaited event of the festival.
Early reviews had been mixed. It is 148 minutes long and had been described as 'talky', 'mischievous', 'deliberately incoherent'(!?), 'playful', 'distinctive piece of American pop art', 'flirts between comedy and violence'.
It seems like Tarantino has continued his trademark outragesly inventive film making in this latest entry.
Will it be released in Malaysia? I am not overly optimistic on that prospect, given the state of our censorship board who barely understands Tarantino's works. (Kill Bill Vol 1 was banned in Malaysia back in 2003)
Friday, May 15, 2009
Sell Out!
Director: Yeo Joon Han
Rating: ** (out of 4)
'Sell Out!' is director Yeo Joon Han's attempt at making a satire cum musical combo. It was made with a noble intention and ambition, and in seeing this film, you can sense that the film makers have put a lot of brain into it. The end result, however, does not quite works.
The main problem with the film is the lack of a focus, a central theme. SB Toh of 'The Star', in his review of this film, was spot on when he says that '......but there is a difference between having something to say and wanting to say something about everything'.
A good, effective statire needs a focus. Ben Stiller's 'Tropic Thunder' poked fun at the Holywood film industry. Alexander Payne's intelligent 'Election' presents a sharp satirical insight into the political system, through a fictional high school election.
For the record, 'Sell Out!' does have a theme, it touches on the issue of idealism vs pragmatism. Nevertheless, instead of focusing and developing on the theme, the film too often exhibits a tendancy to deviate from its focus to say 'something about everything'. It pokes fun at the self-indulgant Malaysian indie films, the monopolistic state of the media industry (I supposed he's referring to the Malaysian media industry), the general public impression on the state of our public service, the reality shows, our obsession with English-accented Eurasians TV host......
Yes, that's a lot, and it dilutes its focus and intellectual coherence.
The 2 main protagonists (Rafflesia Pong and Eric Tan), too, failed to establish an emotional connection with the viewers, further dampening the effectiveness of the film as a satire.
So much for the film's short comings. Let's move on to the film's positive strength. 'Sell Out!' is undeniably brilliant in some moments. It is funny at times and surprisingly effective in some of its song-and-dance sequence. My favourite is the poignant singing of dying Tony, Rafflesia Pong's fiance, on his sick bed, the scene is sentimental yet funny, an odd yet effective combination.
The rest of the movie, too, exhibits a fun and energetic tone, a welcoming release from the 'nothing ever happen' stigma of the many Malaysian indie films (James Lee's works?), which Yeo poked fun at in the beginning of 'Sell Out!'
And KL has never looks better in Yeo's celluloid images.
As a debut feature film, Yeo's ambition deserves compliments. The film is interesting, though not very effective. I will be looking forward to Yeo's next feature film project.
*Note: 'Sell Out!' won the Alternative Vision Award at the 2008 Venice Film Festival
X-men Origins: Wolverine
Director: Gavin Hood
Rating: ** (out of 4)
Yet another Hollywood's attempt to revive a tired franchise by revisiting the origins. Some scored with flying colours; take Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' and Martin Campbell's 'Casino Royale'. Some failed: take 'Hannibal Rising', 'Exorcist: The Beginning'.
How is this latest return-to-origin version to the X-men franchise? Sorry to say, it's a pretty soulless superhero flick.
In my most recent review prior to this, I praised Derek Yee's 'Shinjuku Incident' as a movie with heart, which cares about its characters. 'X-men Origins' provides a contrast to that. Like many of the lesser superhero flicks, it cares more about the super power than the character's human story. What exactly is driving Victor Creed, Wolverine's half brother, in behaving like a reckless animal during the war? No idea. Why did Wolverine and Victor fought in wars after wars? No idea. How do the 2 brothers feel about each other? No idea either.
In fact, just when the film is about to develop some much needed tender human moment, the moment when Wolverine lives with a kind, old couple, the film just blew them away.
Too bad.
Such flaws has been plaguing a lot of lesser superhero flicks. The better ones, like Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight', and Sam Raimi's Spiderman Series, wisely focus more on the character's human story: their struggle, their life choices , their moral dillema. The lesser ones, like 'Fantastic Four' and 'X-men Origins', are more interested about showcasing superpower.
Much of the story is hardly believable. The romance between Wolverine and Kayla is thinly sketched to the extend that when she was killed, I hardly cared. The rage that ensued, to the extend that Wolverine is willing to be transformed into a monster by some crazy experiment in order to seek revenge, is hardly convincing as a result.
The only saving grace to this movie is the plot. The plot, at least gives us a reason to keep watching. Still, that proves to be too little too late, unable to save it from mediocrity.
All the more disappointing is the fact that this movie is directed by Gavin Hood, whose terrific 'Rendition' was on my top 10 list for 2008. I hope that he goes back to making good serious drama, and spend less time making soulless blockbusters like this.
I have nothing against the X-men Series. In fact, I find the first 3 in the series as descent movies worthy of a 3 star rating. At the very least, the characters have personality, making them fun to watch. This latest entry is soulless, and mediocre at best.
Rating: ** (out of 4)
Yet another Hollywood's attempt to revive a tired franchise by revisiting the origins. Some scored with flying colours; take Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' and Martin Campbell's 'Casino Royale'. Some failed: take 'Hannibal Rising', 'Exorcist: The Beginning'.
How is this latest return-to-origin version to the X-men franchise? Sorry to say, it's a pretty soulless superhero flick.
In my most recent review prior to this, I praised Derek Yee's 'Shinjuku Incident' as a movie with heart, which cares about its characters. 'X-men Origins' provides a contrast to that. Like many of the lesser superhero flicks, it cares more about the super power than the character's human story. What exactly is driving Victor Creed, Wolverine's half brother, in behaving like a reckless animal during the war? No idea. Why did Wolverine and Victor fought in wars after wars? No idea. How do the 2 brothers feel about each other? No idea either.
In fact, just when the film is about to develop some much needed tender human moment, the moment when Wolverine lives with a kind, old couple, the film just blew them away.
Too bad.
Such flaws has been plaguing a lot of lesser superhero flicks. The better ones, like Christopher Nolan's 'Batman Begins' and 'The Dark Knight', and Sam Raimi's Spiderman Series, wisely focus more on the character's human story: their struggle, their life choices , their moral dillema. The lesser ones, like 'Fantastic Four' and 'X-men Origins', are more interested about showcasing superpower.
Much of the story is hardly believable. The romance between Wolverine and Kayla is thinly sketched to the extend that when she was killed, I hardly cared. The rage that ensued, to the extend that Wolverine is willing to be transformed into a monster by some crazy experiment in order to seek revenge, is hardly convincing as a result.
The only saving grace to this movie is the plot. The plot, at least gives us a reason to keep watching. Still, that proves to be too little too late, unable to save it from mediocrity.
All the more disappointing is the fact that this movie is directed by Gavin Hood, whose terrific 'Rendition' was on my top 10 list for 2008. I hope that he goes back to making good serious drama, and spend less time making soulless blockbusters like this.
I have nothing against the X-men Series. In fact, I find the first 3 in the series as descent movies worthy of a 3 star rating. At the very least, the characters have personality, making them fun to watch. This latest entry is soulless, and mediocre at best.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Shinjuku Incident (新宿事件)
Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)
Director: Derek Yee
It must have been hard being a illegal immigrant. He not only has to scramble for hard labour work that pays little, he also has to be constantly on alert from being hauled up by enforcement officer for working without a permit. To make matter worse, gangsters may find you a good bullying target.
'Shinjuku Incident' tells the story of Tie Tou (Jacky Chan) who is a Chinese illegal immigrant in Tokyo. His real purpose of being in Tokyo is to look for his hometown lover who has earlier came to Japan but has since never returned. He started off making a living doing menial job, but soon find the temptation of the lucrative dirty business too hard to resist.
You see, Kabukicho in Shinjuku is not a very nice place to operate unethical business operation, especially when the mobters operating there see you as competitor. So, inevitably, Tie Tou was dragged into the circle of Japanese Yakuza.
Having striked a deal with a divisional chief of a mob faction, Tie Tou was given a territory to operate on, for having successfully performed a hitman job. Being a descent man, he decides to legalized his business empire, but sadly, his brothers may not buy the idea.
Like Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster', Derek Yee's film offers a insightful look into the mechanism of how a mob empire works. All is often not well among the different mob factions, and loyalty and rivalry shifts fickly. More importantly, mobsters also operates as capitalist entity, and they may be more business-savvy than you expect them to be.
Jacky Chan's performance in this movie is a rejuvenating transformation for his career. Gone were the trademark 'monkey fight' that we have grew weary of. His 'tie tou' character is a role of depth, and he did not disappoint, although in a few scenes, he did border on over-acting.
A movie like 'Shinjuku Incident' is a movie with heart, it cares about its character. It is interested in the story of Tie Tou's life; how he got into it, how he tried to start anew, and how frustratling it is to see his brothers refusing to follow him to 'clean' uph. A lesser mob movie would have merely used its characters as soulless puppet in staging gangster blood bath. Not in 'Shinjuku Incident'. Seeing it, we realize that some mobsters are not that different from you and I. They are victim of circumstances, who got into the dark path by chance. They, too, are doing it for a living, just like the rest of us.
It reminds me of a sentence from Mario Puzo's mafia novel, 'The Godfather', that a mafia is just a slightly unethical businessman.
Director: Derek Yee
It must have been hard being a illegal immigrant. He not only has to scramble for hard labour work that pays little, he also has to be constantly on alert from being hauled up by enforcement officer for working without a permit. To make matter worse, gangsters may find you a good bullying target.
'Shinjuku Incident' tells the story of Tie Tou (Jacky Chan) who is a Chinese illegal immigrant in Tokyo. His real purpose of being in Tokyo is to look for his hometown lover who has earlier came to Japan but has since never returned. He started off making a living doing menial job, but soon find the temptation of the lucrative dirty business too hard to resist.
You see, Kabukicho in Shinjuku is not a very nice place to operate unethical business operation, especially when the mobters operating there see you as competitor. So, inevitably, Tie Tou was dragged into the circle of Japanese Yakuza.
Having striked a deal with a divisional chief of a mob faction, Tie Tou was given a territory to operate on, for having successfully performed a hitman job. Being a descent man, he decides to legalized his business empire, but sadly, his brothers may not buy the idea.
Like Ridley Scott's 'American Gangster', Derek Yee's film offers a insightful look into the mechanism of how a mob empire works. All is often not well among the different mob factions, and loyalty and rivalry shifts fickly. More importantly, mobsters also operates as capitalist entity, and they may be more business-savvy than you expect them to be.
Jacky Chan's performance in this movie is a rejuvenating transformation for his career. Gone were the trademark 'monkey fight' that we have grew weary of. His 'tie tou' character is a role of depth, and he did not disappoint, although in a few scenes, he did border on over-acting.
A movie like 'Shinjuku Incident' is a movie with heart, it cares about its character. It is interested in the story of Tie Tou's life; how he got into it, how he tried to start anew, and how frustratling it is to see his brothers refusing to follow him to 'clean' uph. A lesser mob movie would have merely used its characters as soulless puppet in staging gangster blood bath. Not in 'Shinjuku Incident'. Seeing it, we realize that some mobsters are not that different from you and I. They are victim of circumstances, who got into the dark path by chance. They, too, are doing it for a living, just like the rest of us.
It reminds me of a sentence from Mario Puzo's mafia novel, 'The Godfather', that a mafia is just a slightly unethical businessman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
