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)

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.

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)

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.

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.