Avatar

Rating: ***1/2 (out of 4)
Cast: Sam Worthington, Sigourney Weaver
Director: James Cameron

James Cameron has a taste for risky projects. He goes for mind-boggling budgeted projects. His 'Titanic' broke record as the most expensive film ever made in its time. Here he is again, after a more than 10 years hiatus from making feature film, 'Avatar' reportedly cost USD 300 million to make.

Hollywood directors are increasingly adept at burning money for special effects, often seemed like a massive waste. James Cameron is not one of them. In fact, he is a rare breed. He spends big money, giving the audience the kind of visual effects feast that they expect, and yet keeps his feet firmly on the ground and not get carried away. He is aware of his essential duty as a filmmaker to tell a story well, by establishing characters that connect to the audience, so that the expensive special effects are there with a purpose, in the context of the story. It matters to the audience what happened to the characters, who win, who lose, who died and who survived.

It was a USD 300 million well spent.

At 163 minutes, it doesn't feel long. It is absorbing, although not right from the beginning. It grows on you. It took its time to establish and develop its characters, and succeeded in sucking the audience into the story. When the final battle is staged, we were absorbed, and we were heartbroken when somebody got killed, we rejoiced with the final victory. (not a spoiler I supposed, a big-budgeted Hollywood production always end with the good guy winning)

Story wise, it isn't new. It is similar to 'The Last Samurai' and 'Dances with Wolves'. It is a tried-and-tested formula, but having said that, it is not probable to expect the studio who invested USD 300 million to experiment with an innovative untested story arc. Formula get re-used again and again simply because it works, so long as the film is well-crafted.

'Avatar' sure works, it is a crowd-pleaser, the kind of blockbuster that pulls in even the indifferent movie-goer who seldom visit the cinema, because the people around them are saying, 'You have got to watch 'Avatar''. And, it will not disappoint. Audience who attended the screening will feel satisfied, and fulfilling. It is not just a rousing entertainment. It is an effective entertainment with substance. It sends its green message, and it plays as a parable of human world conflict, such as the middle east conflict and the war against terrorism, or the exploitation of the native people by foreign intruder, or the relentless human greed under capitalism.

'Avatar' is a perfect example of how a mega film budget should be spent. We have been seeing too many awful special effects extravaganza in 2009, 'Transformers 2' and '2012' being some of the worst. 'Avatar' gave me a new hope; Hollywood still has someone who knows how to craft a good, expensive blockbuster.

If only we have more James Cameron.

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.

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.