The Mouse That Roared (1959)

Hi followers (if there's any). Today I'm gonna review a classic movie, and I say classic in both senses; old and exceptional. I don't know whether you can still get a copy of this movie but when there's a will, blablabla.

'The Mouse That Roared' is a screwball comedy that tells a story of a fictitious backwater European country; the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, that is deep in debt and trouble. Counting on the United States of America's monetary generosity towards her vanquished war enemies, the country's leader, Grand Duchess Gloriana XII (Peter Sellers) embarked on a plan to invade USA and quickly surrender and capitalise on the subsequent war reparations. However, upon arriving in New York with twenty or so soldiers who are not quite armed to the teeth with chain-mails and long-bows, the country's military Number 1; Grand Constable Tully Bascombe (also played by Peter Sellers) finds himself actually succeeding with the invasion after somehow gaining possession of the Q- bomb, a weapon of mass destruction prototype; - he is now stuck with the responsibility of looking after the table-turing yet volatile bomb. The movie shines in itself as a movie, but what also makes this movie a truly exceptional comedy is the great Peter Sellers' multiple roles as various members of (the clueless) Fenwick's aristocracy.

The GOOD:
1) The premise of 'The Mouse That Roared' is hilarious
2) Peter Sellers showcases his enormous Pre-Pink Panther comedic talent in this movie, you can't take your eyes off him

The BAD:
1) The story and the jokes peter out halfway through. You can't help drawing a comparison to Grand Fenwick's war effort itself, they can't sustain it beyond the beginning.

So my VERDICT for this movie is: 8/10.

Here's a piece of movie TRIVIA: The New York invasion sequence was filmed in Manhattan on a Sunday morning when most residents were attending Mass, accounting for the city's empty streets.

Memento (2000)

My second review for my blog is on one of my personal favourite movies of all time by my favourite director; Christopher Nolan. Yup, he's the guy who directed the two Batman movies and whose new movie, 'Inception' is coming out sometime this year. However, this movie came out before he made it big in Hollywood and upon viewing, you could see how hassle-free it seems to have been made, production-wise. No big 'splosions, no crowd-pulling A-listers, just a pure solid story. And that's why I love his movies; he is equally adept at handling high-budget blockbuster flicks as he was with low budget, location-shot movies. But I'm being a bit of a fan boy here so let's get back to 'Memento'.

This movie tells the story of Leonard Shelby (Guy Pearce), a short-term memory loss amnesiac former insurance-claims investigator who, despite his condition, goes in search of the man who causes his amnesia and also his wife's death in a house break-in. Given his condition, he extensively takes notes and photographs in the course of his investigation and he is particularly suspicious of people. Despite his mistrust in people, two seemingly helpful characters pay special attention on him and also help him in his pursuit. Now what's mind-blowing about this movie is that it is told out of sequence, with things that happen chronologically in the end are put at the beginning the movie and as the movie progresses, we are essentially also moving closer towards the beginning of the chronological story. And at the same time, a subplot is also spliced into the movie in a linear order, making the story disorienting, but not in a bad way. In the end, these two plots will merge in such a powerful way that you would have to watch it again to understand because by the end; your understanding of the plot, the characters, everything would have been turned on its head. And trust me, when it comes to Christopher Nolan's movies, you would actually want to watch it over and over again. And for me, one indication that a movie is exceptional is when you keep coming back to revisit it from time to time.

I'm refraining myself from saying that everything about this movie is GOOD so I'll try to be a bit more detailed:

1) the script is solid and water tight and there are almost no plot-holes that Chris Nolan's detractors can use as ammo;

2) it's use of perfectly-timed humour. Given that this is quite a heavy movie, Christopher Nolan was careful in using homour to lighten up the mood just a teeny weeny bit. It's not that there's a lot of it in 'Memento, but when it's there, it's when it is very much needed and used sparingly, just the right amount. In my humble opinion, solid scripts and intelligent use of humor are among Nolan's strongest points and also his trademarks.

The BAD: seriously I can't think of any. Apart from it being a little confusing at times. But it's nothing that someone with an average level of intelligence can't handle.

So my VERDICT for this movie is... 9.5/10! 'Memento' is an exceptional early movie from Nolan that introduces all movie-goers to his masterful handling of brilliant yet at-times convoluted stories that would otherwise have dissipated in other less-capable hands.

MOVIE TRIVIA: Joe Pantoliano and Carrie-Anne Moss who star in this movie had previously worked together in 'The Matrix'. I wonder why Nolan didn't cast Keanu Reeves as Leonard, since he was already doing that with the two?

P/S: Now I remember. Keanu Reeves can't act to save his life.

Invictus (2009)

Admittedly, rugby would not be an obvious choice for a movie subject for An American movie director who started out playing gun-slingers in western flicks. However, Clint Eastwood did just that with his latest offering 'Invictus'. This movie tells the story of the early days of Nelson Mandela's presidency over post-apartheid South Africa and how he used the South African national rugby team; the Springboks entry in the Rugby World Cup to unite the previously segregated people of South Africa.

I was excited over this movie because as much as I'm a football fan, I've always thought that rugby is a more exciting spectator's sport from my days in a rugby-nut boarding school. Too bad I don't get too see too many rugby matches in Malaysia except those shown on Astro 816.

Anyway, let's start with the GOOD:

1) it's hard not to like sports movies and this movie delivers on the pitch;

2) Clint Eastwood has definitely shown that he had done ample research on rugby and it is treated with respect; and sporting and historical accuracy in the movie.

Now for the BAD:

1) if you've seen a real rugby match, you can spot that the rugby sequences are kinda soft. But then again these are actors playing rugby players. Can't afford to get Matt Damon's face get mashed in the scrums and the rucks right?;

2) Clint Eastwood has a way of being too direct with his scripts that when coupled with a little too much optimism, you can't help rolling your eyes at certain moments in 'Invictus'. Show it, don't tell.

So my VERDICT for 'Invictus' is: 6.5/10! It is a good movie with an engaging subject-matter, but ultimately executed in an all-too-formulaic manner.

Here's a piece of movie TRIVIA: Although the All-Blacks are portrayed as a formidable team in this movie, they actually have won the World Cup only once, in 1987. They are like the England football team of rugby, quite good but inconsistent.