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.

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.

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'.