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.

Knowing

Rating: *** (out of 4)

Cast: Nicolas Cage, Rose Byrne
Director: Alex Proyas

Did our world happen by coincidence or by a well-laid plan? This is the debate of determinism vs randomness. In determinism, it is believed that the universe come into being as a creation by a ultra being. As such, things that happened are all part of the plan, and hence a prophecy does exist.

In randomness, it is believed that the universe come about solely as a coincidence, and hence we have things like the big bang theory. Everything that happened is just a coincidence, and hence there is no plan involved and no such thing as a prophecy.

The human society is probably split between the two schools of thought. What is my side on this debate? I don't know for sure. The answer to this will probably remain out-of-reach to me for a long time.

It is good to see a movie like 'Knowing' that is made with this philosophical debate as its core. The movie is told from the eye of John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), a MIT astrophysics professor who is a firm believer in randomness, until he stumbles upon a message from 50 years ago in the form of a numerical pattern, that accurately predict the major disasters that had happened in the past 50 years. The discovery challenges Koestler's belief to its depth, and as viewers, so do ours.

'Knowing' is a sci fi thriller of the philosophical sort. It is thought-provoking, intriguing and at times creepy. It is not perfect; the character acts implausibly at times, and so is the plot. Nevertheless, it is a lot better than many of the hollow special effect extravaganza that is simply forgettable. This one keeps you thinking right after you leave the cinema hall.

The direction, by Alex Proyas, isn't as convincing as his 'Dark City', which masterfully blends sci fi in a noir-ish metropolis. Still, the premise of 'Knowing' is no less intriguing. I just have a feeling that it would have been better if Alex Proyas has made it in a more low-key mode as in 'Dark City'.

Talentime

Rating: *** (out of 4)
Director: Yasmin Ahmad

They say that some filmmakers have only 1 story to tell. Well, I hate to say this, this is the feeling I got after watching Yasmin Ahmad's latest feature film, 'Talentime'. It felt like Anthony Minghella revisiting his theme of war time drama in 'Cold Mountain', years after making the Oscar-winning 'The English Patient'.

'Talentime', like 'Sepet', again deals with interracial relationship. The feeling of deja vu is re-inforced by Harith Iskandar 'reprising' his role as 'Ah bah' of the girl's family. Again, the girl came from a liberal-minded family. Again, the family has a maid who is more like a part of the family. Adibah Noor features again, although in a different role.

With ‘Telentime’, Yasmin seems to be filling in the gap left over in ‘Sepet’. If 'Sepet' is said to be under-representing Indian characters, this time she make amends by having an interracial relationship between an Indian boy and a Malay girl. Yasmin filling in the 'muhibah' quota? Seems so.

Another criticism of 'Sepet' is that it over-simplifies matter by having 2 liberal-minded families in its story (Ironically, this is also partly the reason why 'Sepet' works so well). Here, Yasmin counters to that by having a rather 'racist' mother for the Indian boy. A darker version of 'Sepet'? Seems so.

All the above is meant more as an observation, less as a criticism. Yes, 'Talentime' is rehashing old material. But such material remains highly controversial that it deserves a retelling, with a fresh perspective. I remain a fan of Yasmin's work; 'Talentime' gracefully took a swipe against those who are 'racist' in the Malaysian Society, the re-conciliation between Hafiz and the top scorer Ka Hoe in a musical performance on stage is beautifully done, so is the scene when Mahesh's mother comes to relization that her dead nephew has deep regret over his failed relationship with a Indian-Muslim girl, due to Mahesh's mother objection. The story is told with down-to-earth sincerity as in the Taiwanese ‘Cape No. 7’. So, it is not that commercial.

And yes, the town of Ipoh remains so beautiful in Yasmin's celluloid images.

Is it better than 'Sepet'? Probably not. The characters in 'Talentime' is not as engaging as in 'Sepet'. What Yasmin is doing is probably to give the material a more weighty interpretation. She deserves credit for that.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Rating (out of 4): **1/2

As I was watching ‘The Curious Case of Benjamin Button’, I felt a resemblance to ‘Forrest Gump’. No wonder, the same writer, Eric Roth, penned the screenplays for both movies. Both movies feature a less-than-normal human being, and follow their life story in a cross decades and continent way. Both films also feature a love interest that intersects with the life of the main protagonist in an on and off manner.

No, ‘Benjamin’ isn’t in the class of ‘Forrest Gump’, and I’ll tell you why. ‘Forrest Gump’ is aided by a magnificent performance by Tom Hanks, which will stand the test of time and be remembered as one of the most unforgettable performance in film history. Secondly, ‘Forrest Gump’ is a meditation on modern American history, chronicling major events in recent American history, as seem through the eye of a naïve, good-hearted Gump. As a film, ‘Benjamin’ lacks qualities of such intellectual focus as well as a pivotal acting achievement.

In fact, the 1st half of the movie is somewhat sluggish. We see Benjamin Button born as a baby with wrinkles and cataract, and age backwards. His childhood was spent in an old-age home, listening to life stories of old people in their twilight years. Death, is a common sight for him from small. He then met Daisy, the love of his life. As he grew up, he embarked on a cross-continental sea voyage in a tug boat, and stumble upon war battle.

Up until this point, the film is way too episodic, lacking a good flow. It is a common trap for movies chronicling life events to fall into, particularly biopic. Some, like Martin Scorsese’s splendid ‘The Aviator’, managed to provide a much-needed story arc to allow the life events sail through in a nice flow.

The movie starts to pick up when Ben and Daisy, who age in opposite direction, intersects in their 20’s and 30’s. This is when a story arc starts to surface, putting them into difficult life choices and moral dilemma. Ben was hesitating to raise his daughter, as he thinks the daughter need a real father who age with her, and that Ben will be more like a playmate to her, and Daisy can’t possibly be raising both of them. This is what we find interesting, fitting a ‘curious case’ as Benjamin’s.

The film was directed by David Fincher, who has previously worked predominantly in the realm of thrillers. His ‘Se7en’, ‘Fight Club’, ‘The Game’, ‘Panic Room’ and ‘Zodiac’, offers some of the most well-made thrillers in modern time. A material like ‘Benjamin’ is a somewhat unfamiliar territory for Fincher, and it felt so.

No doubt, on a production level, ‘Benjamin’ is impressive in many aspects, and it may very well picks up Oscars for makeup, visual effects, art direction and other technical categories. It is also well-acted as a whole. It is an ambitious film, exploring heavy subject matters such as life, death, aging and mortality. But the film seems overwhelmed by its own ambition, and I am not sure if the ‘curious case’ premise really helps to tell such philosophical elements better. It feels more like a gimmick to pull the audience in.

Red Cliff (Pt 1 & 2) 赤壁

Rating (out of 4) : ***

I am thankful that John Woo has made Red Cliff (Pt 1 & 2) without overly focusing on the grand battle scene. The original material which the films were based upon, 'The Romance of the Three Kingdom', is a work with considerable depth, and John Woo's films lend justice to that.

Yes, 'Red Cliff' has loads of grand battles, some a bit overlong. But the films are also as much about the mechanics of warfare too; the planning, the strategy, the war tactics, great minds outsmarting each other, the organizational structure within a war faction. These, are in fact, elements that I find more interesting.

The mechanics in which the war factions organize themselves was elaborately presented by John Woo, so much so that it can be seen as a parable to the way humanity organize themselves. At the very top, you have warlords like Liu Bei and Sun Quan. In the business world, they will be the business owners, the ones with the vision. They assembled a team of able and trusted lieutenants to work with him in achieving his vision. At the foreground, the warlord (business owner) may not be doing much. The actual running of the army is left to a commander-in-chief like Zhou Yu, much like the CEO is the one who run the business. Nevertheless, the warlord is the ultimate leader, who first came out with the vision and build an organization from scratch to achieve it. They, the successful ones, often live by a certain principle and thus command respect and loyalty from his top lieutenants. In the film, Liu Bei stood firm by his principle to protect his citizen, even if that means he will have to concede defeat to his enemy due to that.

The commander-in-chief (CEO) run the business, they get the job done for the warlord (business owner), but they are often professionals who may switch sides by working for another warlord (business owner). Still, as the film shows, a successful war campaign (business) needs a loyal partnership between the warlord and his commander-in-chief, that's where the warlord (business owner) needs to be trusworthy and charismatic to make his top lieutenants believe in his vision.

Under the commander-in-chief, there are the other top generals like Zhao Zilong, Guan Yunzhang, Zhang Fei and Zhu Geliang, not unlike the COO, CFO, CTO, Regional Chiefs who formed the top management team of a business organization. The chain of command goes right down to a bomb maker who make bombs out of fish oil. He is like a project manager, no?

Hell, even top generals had to deal with tight deadlines, and the punishment for not meeting the deadlines? Death by beheading. I would have been dead many times have I lived in those time.

Of course, you also have variation in roles like Chao Cao, who's more like an owner/CEO. Zhu Geliang is not quite a CEO but a chief strategist, a master mind.

Cool huh?

Red Cliff is the kind of movie that sort of making the war looks pretty cool. In fact, the one attempt by John Woo to balance things up (to make it look ugly) by having an unnecessary romantic subplot involving Sun Shangxiang and a young rival army turn out to be rather, unnecessary.

If only John Woo has gone even deeper by exploring the personal conflict, the inner struggle of some of the major characters like Liu Bei, Sun Quan, Zhou Yu and Zhu Geliang, the moral dilemma of these people in fighting the war, Red Cliff would have been quite a package. Yes, yes, I know I am being fussy here. Still, Red Cliff deserves praise as a work that lend justice to its original materials. The production is impressive, the war game intriguing and the ensemble cast gave an imposing collective performance.

* Note: I choose to review 'Red Cliff (Pt 1 & 2)' as a single unit of work as I don't see any artistic reason of breaking it into 2 films. This is unlike Quentin Tarantino's 'Kill Bill Vol 1' and 'Kill Bill Vol 2', which posses qualities that justify them to be seen as 2 individual films. The decision to break 'Red Cliff' into 2 films must have been purely a commercial one.
Also, part of the reason is I happened to watch both the 'Red Cliff' films in a single day 4-hour-plus movie marathon, thanks to GSC who re-run part 1 which I have missed last year.