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.

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.

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

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.