Muallaf

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

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.

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.

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.