Reading is bad - A Captain America: Civil War review

I've mentioned before that as a normal, male movie-watcher, I can't help but be sucked in by all the superhero movies. Sure, I've also been watching normal, non-superhero movies, but they're not worth writing about here. I haven't been writing about superhero movies either, because for the most part share the opinions most people have about the; that they are enjoyable movies with surprisingly tight plot (at least Marvel Studios ones. Dawn of Justice? Eeesshh.)

Until Captain America: Civil War.

A bit of background is due. I didn't grow up with superhero comic books, and even when I had the means, I mostly read DC Comics. The only Marvel comics I read was the Civil War titles, and it was because they were arranged so it was easy for casual readers like me to follow the story.

Up until Captain America: Civil War, I had enjoyed all of Marvel Studios movies, and I think the previous two Cap movies were among the most brilliant movies by the company.

Even after two viewings, I was left feeling unsatisfied by Civil War, and they were mainly caused by the fact that I could not stop comparing the movie with the source material, among the few Marvel comics that I've read.

One of my biggest gripes towards the movie is the reason behind the clash between Cap and Iron Man. In the comics the reason is the Superhero Registration Act, following an incident involving minor-level costumes that caused an explosion near a school that killed a lot of children, which Captain America could not bring himself to accept. So it was a battle of principals, between the freedom-loving one-time poster boy of Uncle Sam, and Tony Stark, who is essentially a businessman who knows when to cut his losses and play ball with the government.

But in the movie, it is essentially about Cap's brainwashed former bestfriend-turned frenemy Winter Soldier, and whether he is guilty for countless murders. Yes there is the Sokovia Agreement, but it only plays a part for around half an hour, and the conflict in the movie hinges more on whether Cap is going to go with Winter Soldier or Iron Man, like little kids at the playground. And in the end, after the big revelation that buries dead Stark's chance of ever accepting Bucky as a troubled man, when Cap reveals that he has known all along what the Winter Soldier did and hides it from Stark's knowledge, Cap gives a cop-out explanation; "I thought I did it to protect you, but it was actually to protect me," or some such. Really weak there. 

Furthermore, the reveal of the mastermind behind the whole schism, and the reason for doing it, feels really off. I mean this character is a pretty iconic character in the comics, but they've turned it lame.

My second complaint is that the movie feels small. In the comics the story arc involves almost all characters and titles owned by the company, so it is massive.

The movie only had Iron Man, Cap, Black Widow, Spidey, Ant-Man, Falcon, Winter Soldier, Hawkeye, War Machine, Black Panther and Vision. Sure it was a massive achievement getting all these characters and (stars) to be in the movie, but it still felt lacking, knowing that they purposely leave out Thor and Hulk, who supposedly are in the third Thor movie, and knowing that there are more characters on the tv side of Marvel Cinematics Universe that have been left unused. Guys like Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Punisher, SHIELD guys. I have a feeling that they had to rush Spider-Man and Black Panther in because the roster felt a little small.

In fact I've had this reservation ever since the movie was first announced, finding it weird that it was going to be filmed as a Captain America title, instead of an Avengers one, as it involved almost all MCU characters. I have a feeling that this would be better as an Avengers title further down the line, when they have introduced more characters such as Luke Cage, Iron Fist, Doctor Strange and Captain Marvel, and only after they are done with Avengers: Infinity War. If one movie is too cramped to star all these guys, then make it a two-parter, like what they are planning to do with IW.

My next point is one of the criticisms many people have towards MCU movies; that the ending bears very few consequences. The comics end with many characters dying, on both sides of the divide, including one major character, but the movie's ending feels like all that has happened earlier, all the heartaches, all the betrayals, are simply swept under the carpet. Sure, as a business you can't afford to kill off your bankable characters (funnily enough, this doesn't apply to Game of Thrones) but there are still places you can go to without offing your hero.

I have a few other complaints about the movie, the first MCU movie that left me feeling disappointed, but the above are the ones that concern me having already read the source material. Sometimes I wonder if I would have enjoyed it more if I haven't read the comics first.

The GOOD: SpiderMan steals the show, and I really enjoy the fact that he is played by someone who actually looks like a teenager for a change.

The BAD: The mastermind has been normalled-down as compared to his original comics counterpart.

My VERDICT: 6.5/10. It's still enjoyable, but after the very strong and intriguing Cap 1 and 2, it seems like when it comes to superhero movies, the third outing will almost always fail to reach the previous heights. Case in point, The Dark Knight Rises, Sam Raimi's Spiderman 3, X-Men 3 and the recently-released X-Men: Apocalypse.

TRIVIA: In the comics, the Superhero Registration Act would require all costumed superheroes to register their secret identity with the government, but that would not work in the movies as most of their identities are already publicly known, or at least known by the government.

Shoot 'Em Up (2007)

The other day I wrote about John Wick, which I ultimately find to be overrated, and compared it to Shoot 'Em Up.

I first saw it the year it came out, have seen it a couple of times on TV, and recently had watched it again. All this while it has stood the test of time, in my opinion.

The movie stars Clive Owen as Smith, a gruff assassin who finds himself in possession of and protecting a baby wanted by a master assassin played by Paul Giamatti. Along the way, he is helped by a prostitute played by Monica Bellucci who plays the role of wet nurse to the baby.

The movie is a black comedy film, but what I find endearing about Shoot 'Em Up is the tone of the comedy employed. It is funny, but not in a wisecracking, eye-winking way of Die Hard movies or more recently the Marvel superhero movies. The characters are all scowling serious, if dedicatedly over-the-top, but the situations they are put in and their actions give the movie its comedic charm.

A shoot out near a neon sign leads to this visual gag

And of course, the action too is commendable, and get more over the top and improbable, but always retaining its sense of warped humour, as the movie blazes to its conclusion, a gun battle while falling off a plane.

Why the movie wasn't received much better I don't know why.

The GOOD: Giamatti may not be the most obvious choice for the evil antagonist, but as the film's petulant, self-proclaimed genius villain with a double life as a family-oriented man, he really sells the role.

My VERDICT: I give it an 7/10

TRIVIA: As pointed out by the late Roger Ebert, one year prior to this film, Owen had starred in a movie as a man protecting a baby while being shot at throughout much of the film, Children of Men (2006).

Birdman (2014) and John Wick (2014)

Amidst the current glut of superhero movies, I took the time to watch two non-superhero movies that have been highly praised or won awards; Birdman and John Wick. However I found these two movies to be wanting.

Birdman: 

I heard about it because it won a lot of awards, including the Oscars. Funnily enough, the movie does concern superhero or superhero movies a bit, with Michael Keaton (from Tim Burton's Batman movies) playing a washed out former superhero movie star staging his big comeback by putting on a Broadway theater show. The movie's famous gimmick is that the whole movie appears uncut, as if it were one long take.

However, I was left feeling meh after the movie ended. I don't know whether the movie is pretentious or I am turning into an even bigger philistine. Perhaps it's the much-talked about ambiguous ending. The weird thing is, after I watched the movie, I went online to read the reviews (and make sense of the ending), and many of the reviews and reports made it like the movie is a comedy, which I found surprising. I never once got the feeling that the movie was a comedy while watching it, not even in the failing-to-be-funny sense.

TRIVIA: The three leads, Keaton, Edward Norton and Emma Stone had all starred in big-budget superhero movies, or played superheroes. Keaton as Batman, Norton as The Hulk in The Incredible Hulk (2008) and Stone as Gwen Stacy in the latest Spiderman movies.

John Wick:

I had come across this movie a lot while frequenting a forum. The forum users were full of praise for it, so I finally decided to check it out. It stars Keanu Reeves as a former hitman who is out to avenge his dog, which was killed in a home invasion by the son of his former mob boss. I was drawn to the movie because the forum users praised its action sequences.

However, just like Birdman, I was left feeling "...okay...?" when the credit started rolling. I really can't put my finger on it, but I was left not feeling satiated by the movie. And the action sequences are numerous, but they did not leave me amazed.

I was expecting something as dizzying as what has been shown in the latest Mad Max or by the revival of Mission Impossible. That may not be fair because the movie is not about a lone gunman shooting his way through disposable henchmen to find the boss, but there are movies which had done it right. One example is the little-known Shoot 'Em Up (2007), a self-aware, goofy, funny and satisfying romp between one gunfight to another.

Perhaps it's Keanu. I've not enjoyed anything with him since The Matrix, and in that movie his wooden acting works, in portraying an outsider who is revealed the mind-blowing truth, and constantly trying to make sense of it.

The same thing had also happened to me with an almost similar movie; Dredd (2012). Same plot, same forum users talking a movie up, same outcome. That forum has really got to start weeding out movie studio shills from their users database.

My VERDICT: I rate both these movies 6/10.

Bringing the dead back to life: The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008) and Veronica Mars (2014)

I love TV series, although I don't necessarily have the time to follow all the good ones. The thing is with good TV series, they don't cater to the lowest common denominator, so more often than not they get cancelled due to low ratings, often before their story arc gets resolved.

Sometimes these prematurely-cancelled TV series get a second life, on the silver screen. I'm not talking about adaptations like The A-Team, Miami Vice, or Starsky and Hutch, but a continuation of the story using the same cast members and writers who appeared on TV. Usually, these movies are produced so that their fans, who are always near-fanatical in their support, get a resolution that they they've been robbed off due to the cancellation.

Recently, I coincidentally watched two of such movies, The X Files: I Want to Believe (2008) and Veronica Mars (2014). 

X-Files was such a hit when it came out in the 1990s, and it captured the feelings of paranoia and mistrust towards the government, as embodied by two FBI agents investigating supernatural cases. It ran for several seasons, before it veered into extra-terrestrial, government conspiracy and alien abduction territory, and cancelled. I Want to Believe has (former) FBI agents Mulder and Scully being asked to help in solving the abduction of an FBI agent, as the only lead the bureau has seems to come from a former priest who seemingly displays clairvoyance abilities.

Meanwhile Veronica Mars the TV series was about the titular character, a teenage private eye who investigates the cases taking place in her hometown, Neptune. The premise may sound cheesy and childish, but it was anything but. It combined elements of film noir and teenage soap well, and the story arcs were genuinely interesting before it got canned on a cliff hanger at the end of its third season.

The movie picks up almost ten years after the events of the third season, with Mars reluctantly coming back to her hometown to help her highschool sweetheart beat a murder charge, and also to attend her high school reunion.

The two movies and TV series have one similarity in that they are both mystery shows, and as series, they both had episodic mysteries, and the bigger slow-burning, season-long mysteries. The movies being limited in airtime duration, don't have this opportunity to engage the fans, and have to be much more straightforward. They can't really have anything unresolved by the end of the movie.

Secondly, these movies seem intent on recapturing the essence of what made them great as TV shows back then, something which isn't necessarily possible. X-Files the TV show was great because it was among the first shows to tap into the paranoia and mistrust. But these sentiments are not exactly fresh these days anymore.

And the movies have to take into account the time that has elapsed since the shows ended, which can be detrimental to the new story that they want to tell. X-Files the series supposedly ended with Mulder as a wanted fugitive, but the movie explains it away by having FBI give Mulder a pardon for helping them with their agent's disappearance. Just like that. And suddenly Mulder and Scully are in a relationship? Huh? They always had a thing for each other in the show in a subtle way, but the movie made it so overt and icky.

In Veronica Mars' case, I remember her PI father being charged for murder just before the show got cancelled, but none of that is mentioned in the movie. And suddenly her sweet heart, Logan is in the navy, but he's not actually on active duty?

I don't know, it seems that when it comes to hit TV shows, that which is dead should just be let to rest in peace, and not revived haphazardly like some aberration, like the Frankenstein monster, just because David Duchovny or Kristin Bell can't find another decent acting gig.

At the very least, they should stick to their original medium like what another one of my favourite TV shows, Arrested Development did. It was revived for a fourth season some years after its cancellation, but it stayed a TV show, and did not have to rush its plot. As a result, it managed to retain a high level of its original run's quality (although Portia de Rossi's forehead and hairline did look weirder than before).

I give X-Files: I Want to Believe 5.5/10 and Veronica Mars 6/10.

Interstellar (2014): or how I learned to suspend my disbelief and love movies

I've always been a big fan of Christopher Nolan, ever since Memento, which was among the earliest movie I reviewed here. Batman Begins, The Dark Knight and The Prestige are also in my list of personal favourites, and that is due to one reason; the motivation of the characters in those movies are believable. Things don't happen just so that the plot can be advanced. I've also written about this. To a certain extent, I've also adopted the same notion in other mediums of art I enjoy, that's why I consider HBO's The Wire as my favourite TV show of all time, and enjoy George RR Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire fantasy novel series; the characters are calculating and they do not make decisions that make the viewers/readers question the validity. These Nolan movies left me thinking about them a few days afterwards, trying to poke holes and find inconsistencies in them. Usually when I found one (Batman won't kill bad guys, but letting Ras Al Ghul plunge to his apparent death on the runaway train is ok?), it did not matter much because they are just minor things and they are overwhelmed by just how enjoyable the rest of the movie is.

(By the way, the reason Gandalf and the Fellowhip do not take the Eagles from the very beginning is because there are Nazguls and dragons.)

This means that it often detracts my enjoyment of certain movies. I do understand that works of art often need to take certain liberties with things such as realism, physics and politics and employ fantastical elements, but I've become too eager to pick holes in said movies. Let's take the example of those Marvel superhero movies. I do enjoy them, but only to a certain extent. I can't get past why Iron Man only needs his basic suit to take out hordes of Chitauri spacecrafts, but needs to wear another armour over his basic armour in order to take on Hulk. That's why I don't really care for Thor, because his movies sit in the magical realm, although they do try to explain it away as very advanced science, which to our relatively primitive civilisation, appears magical.

That's not to say I'm a total logic monster. When it comes to watching comedies and musicals, I am more pliant. My shield just goes up when I watch drama, thriller or any 'serious' movies.

And that is why I didn't mention his other movies above; The Dark Knight Rises and the very popular Inception. I was massively disappointed with TDKR, because there are just so many plot holes in it. Gordon brings his confession note everywhere, later conveniently found by Bane who uses it to demotivate the city residents? Batman simply believes a female criminal who dresses up like a cat, who then walks him right into Bane's trap? Almost all of Gotham's police force is taken to conduct a raid, only to be trapped underground, leaving the city defenseless, and when they are eventually released, they confront Bane's thugs in hand-to-hand combat, in broad daylight? How the hell did Batman manage to get back to Gotham, and sneak into the isolated and barricaded city? If I found more holes, the movie would turn into a documentary about cheese instead.

Whereas with Inception, the problem is not so much with the plot, which I think was more or less watertight for a movie with its scope, but with me not being able to enjoy it. It was just 'meh'. I didn't go home trying to work out what the inconsistencies were.

Naturally, when Nolan's latest movie, Interstellar was announced, I was equal parts excited and wary. It did look exciting with a hefty science fiction subject matter that involves space travel and time, but movies that employ these two usually end up with numerous plot holes. I wondered whether this movie would go the same route as TDKR. Maybe TDKR and Inception were not glitches.

[SPOILERS] After watching Interstellar last week, my take on it is that it does have a few plot holes: the sudden inability of a smart physicist in calculating the time dilation on the first planet, how Cooper manages to come through the other side of the black hole, that sudden talk about love nonsense, how Murphy manages to convince her very angry brother that their father is actually talking to her from wherever he is, and who are 'they' actually?

However, I think this is the first time whereby plot holes in a movie does not affect my enjoyment of it. I thoroughly enjoyed every second of it, and it convinced me that the holes are necessary for me to enjoy it. I cried three times at least, and it made me feel the vastness of our universe and comparatively, how infinitesimal we are.

Interstellar also reminded me again how a movie can use the fantastic to make us forget the world beyond the four walls of the cinema, for the duration of the movie. Just like his earliest movies, I spent the following day just asking questions about the movie's plot, and I did find a few things (which I raised above), but they ultimately don't matter. It managed to sweep me to a different state of mind.

I'm not gonna review the movie because I'm sure other people have done it better than I can. But you should go watch it, the visuals are impressive, the plot arresting and best off all, all this is used to speak about the bigger picture; humanity. The science fiction elements are merely vehicle to tell the story of humanity and our place in the universe.

The GOOD: Bittersweet and heartbreaking theme, beautiful visuals, brilliant execution, spot-on performance, and TARS.
The BAD: That hammy love vs science speech that comes out of nowhere, repeated quoting of Dylan Thomas' "Do not go gentle into that good night".

My VERDICT: 8/10. Far from perfect, but highly enjoyable and mindblowing in more ways than one.

TRIVIA: Matthew Mcconaughey once starred in another movie about interstellar travel, Contact (1997) as a priest.

Four Lions (2010)

It's been awhile since I last watched this black comedy, so the details are a bit sketchy. But I remember it being hilarious. It's a bit of a sleeper hit, so I think this qualifies for my blog. Furthermore, since the whole issue of ISIS has cropped up, I think the subject is relevant to the viewing public.

Four Lions is about a bunch of radicalised British Muslims who decide to commit their own terror plan in Sheffield, England. The thing is, they are so inept at it that they constantly botch up their plans. Think of the Three Stooges, but instead of poking each other's eye out, they behead each other. Those plans include coming up with threatening videos, going to Pakistan to undergo terror camp, and trying to decide on a worthwhile target to bomb.

Trailer. Hilarious, bro.

The way the movie works is like it's a series of comedy skits featuring the four main characters, who unfortunately are not the sharpest tools in the shed. They constantly bicker with each other, and at times endanger themselves more than society, through their sheer buffoonery. In portraying them as clueless, I think the director essentially humanises the terrorists, and not necessarily in a bad way. Too often evil people are portrayed (in real life as well as on the screen) as completely heartless, when most of them undergo logical progression of thought that normal people have now and then. And now with ISIS, they are often portrayed in the news as total plonkers who can't tell the pointy end of the knife that they use to behead people, which underestimates their actual danger to society, when in reality it is relatively easy for a determined idiot to wreak havoc among the innocent.

The GOOD: Unlike most black comedy, which sacrifices the humour in the later half of the film for drama, Four Lions retains its humour until the chilling end.

My VERDICT: I give it an 8/10

TRIVIA: There's a cameo by pre-Hollywood fame Benedict Cumberbatch.

Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005)

Robert Downey Jr is so hot right now. He's been playing Tony Stark and Sherlock Holmes these past few years, and good for him. But you may not remember the time when his name was a punchline, due to his drugs and alcohol addiction. Below is just one example from that period, from The Simpsons.

For some time, movie studios refused to cast him in their movies, considering him a liability. But Shane Black, the king of 90's buddy cop/action movies writer (Last Action Hero, Last Boy Scout, Lethal Weapon), wanted to make his debut as a director. That movie was Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005), adapted from Brett Halliday's novel Bodies Are Where You Find Them. Somehow Black managed to convince the studio to hire Downey Jr as the protagonist, and the movie would hail his return to the forefront of Hollywood.

The movie is about a thief, Harry Lockhart (RDJ) who is unwittingly used as a lure in a Hollywood movie, in order for the studio to lure the actual star they want. A gay private investigator (Val Kilmer) was assigned to provide him with training, but they inadvertently get involved in a Hollywood conspiracy involving murders, and Harry's childhood sweetheart.

The chemistry between Kilmer and RDJ shines through in this movie, and they channeled Black's trademark razor sharp and witty script well. The conspiracy is believable and never loses the audience's interest, peppered with dark humour that never goes away, as it so happens in other black comedies.

The GOOD: Tight and good script that manages to be funny too. A topless Michelle Monaghan

My VERDICT: this movie is a tight 7.5/10

TRIVIA: As RDJ gained more success as Marvel's Iron Man after his comeback in this movie, he and Black would team up again in Iron Man 3 (2013). The movie would feature his trademark fast-talking, buddy action (Stark and Rhodes) and sense of humour, which gelled well with Marvel Cinematic Universe's brand humour. And it's quite well-made, at least better than Iron Man 2.

Recent movies round up

It's been awhile since I watched an underrated movie that I like, so this time I'll just do a brief roundup of the recent movies I watched. It's blockbuster season again, and we welcome back cinematic explosions and men in tights.

My limited time now means that whatever entertainment I indulge in, I have to make sure that the enjoyment is guaranteed, that means I can ill afford to experiment with my movies and have to watch the well-rated mainstream ones. That's also why I'm still single, I mean committing to a woman does not guarantee success these days heheh.

1) Godzilla (2014)

When I first learned about this movie, I went "Really? But why?" and did not think much about it. The 1998 Roland Emmerich version is forgettable, even if slightly enjoyable, so I wondered why another adaptation was deemed necessary. But when the Asian trailer came out, it showed another monster and I decided I had to watch it, as that has to mean that Godzilla is not the antagonist, like the role he plays in the 1998 version. But I did wonder, as to why they revealed the inclusion of the winged monster (Muto) in that trailer.

I cannot answer that without spoiling it for you, but suffice for me to say that this is the strength of the movie, minor plot twists throughout the movie. Enough to get you surprised, but not to make it the focus of the movie without them feeling ham-fisted. 

The director took something that could be straight forward and unmemorable in the hands of lesser directors, and made the movie stand out. And Bryan Cranston's casting made the human element of the monster movie better. And I'm not a fan of the Japanese Godzilla, but other Internet users say that this version is more accurate to the original character. My only gripe is that there is not enough monster battle, something that I share with many other viewers. However, I concur that something as awe-inspiring as the sight of two monsters levelling San Francisco must be shown in moderation, or the excess will detract from the experience. Godzilla gets a 8/10 from me.

2) Edge of Tomorrow

I just watched this science fiction flick yesterday, and it was an enjoyable experience. It's nothing to shout about, but it's good nonetheless. A soldier, played by Tom Cruise, who is forcefully-conscripted to fight in an alien invasion finds himself reliving the same day over and over again every time he dies, which means that he is able to train himself and learn about the true nature of the aliens, with the help of a war hero played by a blonde Emily Blunt. So it's like a combination of Starship Troopers, Groundhog Day and the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan.

The effects are cool, the plot okay and the chemistry between Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt is believable. The best part of the movie is when the point of view unknowingly shifts from Tom Cruise's character to Emily Blunt's, so the viewers are left wondering whether what is happening on the screen is happening for the first time or it has happened before to him. I give it a 7/10 too. By the way this movie is originally from a Japanese teen novel titled 'All You Need is Kill'. P/S: I would shamelessly ignore the war effort and die repeatedly if that means being greeted by a stretching Emily Blunt every time. Watch it and you'll understand.

3) X-Men: Days of Future Past

Admittedly, after the suck-fest that was X-Men 3 I would have given DOFP a miss. But First Class sort of revived the franchise so I gave DOFP a chance, although I was still reluctant that the inclusion of the previous franchise's cast would bring along the bloated-ness associated with it, and with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine. I was glad that aside from being an enjoyable movie, DOFP is also able to do something else important to the franchise, ret-con it and open a new chapter for movie X-Men. 

Now if you're not familiar with comic books, to ret-con something means to change the history of a character, to give it a clean slate. This happens a lot, especially with long-running and famous characters. It is understandable, after all after 50, 60 years of publication, there is not much wiggle room left from which to advance the plot. Sometimes it is done casually without much explanation given as to the changes minor or major, a lot of times some supernatural of pseudo-science reasons are given such as time-travel, ripples in the space-time continuum, or magic. It's a bit silly, sure, but still necessary for the longevity of the character and the comic book medium itself. The most recent one is the retconning of the DC Comics universe, now dubbed the New-52.

This is what happens in DOFP. In the future, mutants are hunted by shape-sifting robots Sentinels, and Professor X (Patrick Stewart), Magneto (Ian Mckellen) band together with Kitty Pride, Storm and Blink to send Wolverine back through time to stop an event which brought about the creation of the Sentinels, and eventual the destruction of mutants. In the 1970's Wolverine finds Professor X and Magneto's younger selves to enlist their help in stopping the event.

I love this movie on account of them embracing ret-conning as a tool in their storytelling, much like in the comic books. And they utilise it well, as a lot of times when it is employed in the comics, the writers are criticised for the decision by the readers. Without going into too much detail, in DOFP it is part of the story via time-travel, and it also erases the bloated X2 and X3 from the equation. Furthermore, it also buries the whole humans-are-afraid-of-mutants plot that has always been the main source of conflict in the franchise. There are only so many times that that story can be told. It will be replaced by a new big bad altogether, so please stay until the final credit. DOFP gets a 7/10 from me.

I want good character-motivation

After all these years, I've only watched Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon last night. The movie is great, the cinematography beautiful, and the action scenes are simply mindblowing, especially the fight scene on the bamboo plants. However, what makes it brilliant is how the director; Ang Lee uses all those kung fu and action scenes to tell a very poignant story about what essentially are very human desires and longing. But I'm not writing today to review this movie. After all it's rather accessible, and a lot of reviews have been written about it. That's not what I intend to do in this blog.

I want to talk about a notion that I have always had, that I think was finally confirmed upon watching Crouching Tiger. I have my own list of what I consider my personal favourites, and I've always thought that they share one similarity; believable character motivation that is propelled by believable emotions. What are these movies? Saving Private Ryan, Lord of the Rings, Memento, Batman Begins, The Matrix, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Songlap. I know, these are quite popular movies, nothing too art-housey nor obscure. I'm not gonna lie, I enjoy watching giant robots punch each other to pieces, and digital messiahs stop bullets with a wave of his hand in blockbuster movies as much as the next guy. But for these movies to transcend their status as mere explosion-fests, to attain immortality and occupy their place as my favourites, takes a lot more. And that is their strong emotional core. This essentially means that in these movies, the characters' actions are motivated by the sort of feelings that are relatable to the audience. Whatever the actions taken by them on the screen are, they make us go "I guess I'd put on a bat costume, leap off buildings, and bash criminals' heads in too, if I were a billionaire whose parents were murdered by a mugger". Let's begin with...'Batman Begins', haha. 

It would be too far a leap if the story has Bruce Wayne put on a bat costume to fight crime straightaway, but the story gains legitimacy by having him try to exact revenge on his parents' murderer first. And the movie (or the source material, I don't read a lot of comic books) then has it that someone else gets to the murderer first, depriving him of that one thing that he thinks is going to let him sleep more peacefully at night. And then his childhood sweetheart gets disappointed at him for wanting to exact revenge, saying that his dead parents would be equally disappointed of him. He's a boy whose parents will not be there anymore to comfort when he has nightmares, and his only chance at some semblance of happiness or satisfaction is taken away from him. On top of that, his girlfriend is upset at him. He's all alone in this world. ONLY THEN the batsuit, batmobile, and gadgets feature in the movies. 

And even then the movie doesn't ditch its emotional core. He becomes Batman at night to ensure that no one has to suffer what he had gone through, but far from it being done just out of selflessness, he also does it out of a very personal need to silence the screams of his murdered parents that he hears every night (comic book fans have said that Batman is actually just as crazy as the villains he battles). What's worse is at the end, upon defeating his enemies and revealing to his sweetheart that he is Batman; she rebuffs him, saying that the boy she knew never came back from his soul-searching sojourn halfway across the world, instead in his place now is a man whose sole interest is fighting crimes with his various bat-themed gadgets. He is still all alone, save for the company of his loyal butler.

Yeah, yeah I know. I can be a bit obsessive about Batman and Nolan.

How about Saving Private Ryan? At the end, the mild-mannered squad captain, played by Tom Hanks (he doesn't play any other kind of character, does he?) reveals that he willingly risks his life to take up the job of rescuing Private Ryan's life in order to atone for the killings he has committed throughout the war, in order to 'deserve' coming back home to his wife and previous life. And he also tells Ryan to "earn" being rescued at the cost of the squad's lives, after his tour of duty ends. These are all very real motivations that the audience can relate to.

In Memento (another Nolan fare), Leonard the amnesiac protagonist goes around looking for his wife's murderer despite his handicap, not just for revenge, but also to fill the void in his now empty life, and the ending of the movie makes this need even more apparent.

In the Lord of the Rings, why does Frodo make the perilous journey to Mt Doom to destroy his uncle's ring? It's definitely not because he wants to save the Shire, or protect Middle-Earth. He is just one of the Hobbits, a race who is insequential in the wars and history of the bigger and more noble races of Middle-Earth. It is because he has been told by Gandalf that Sauron and his agents will keep coming for him for as long the ring is in his possession, putting his own life in constant mortal danger. All the big talks about loyalty, responsibility, duty and sacrifice in the trilogy come from Sam, Gandalf and Aragorn, if you pay close attention.

How about in 'Eternal Sunshine'? Without revealing too much, it's not just about a guy who loses his love, but it's about not wanting to let go of the memory of that love, even the bad times.

These are all very relatable emotions that are not easy cop outs in any movie. I mean the desire for revenge at a loved one's death is not too far-fetched, but how often do we go on bullet-spraying vendettas after a family member dies after being hit by a drunk driver in real life? Sure, in most movies true love waits or stands outside the room with a boombox (or stalks behind the bushes with a meat cleaver in horror movies), but in real life we just find ourselves a new partner sooner or later, no matter how painful the heartbreak is initially. These are not very relatable emotions that inspire credible motivations for the audience to start suspending their disbelief.

Don't get me wrong. I concur that movies are ultimately just our escape from reality, but for me, that flight into fantasy must be grounded in reality at its heart, if a movie wants to be really great. Think of CGI, they say that it's just a tool in the arsenal of a great movie-maker, but it must never supersede or replace good storytelling itself. The same can be said about character emotions and motivations. You can make a cerebral thriller that twists and turns unexpectedly at every corner to enthrall the audience, but if you don't give the hero a relatable motivation, it will end up just a good movie, not great. All the actions taken in the thriller are just there to advance the plot.

In the case of Crouching Tiger, I love how the imaginative fight sequences are just the icing on a well-written cake of a movie that's peopled by characters that are simply looking for their own happiness, after having distanced themselves from the affection of another human being after all these years due to honour and self-sacrifice.

To further solidify my point, I'll take the example of another Batman movie that was also directed by Nolan; 'The Dark Knight'. It is essentially structured as a caper story, and a pretty smart one at that. It is a great movie, but it is not one of my personal favourites. Why? It's because I feel that it loses some of its emotional core, and instead of being driven by character flaws as in Begins, Dark Knight is advanced by idealism and stoicism. For me, that's not real and it doesn't grip my emotions. I think realistically, we as humans are more weak in character than we are strong, and from our smallest and most mundane daily actions, to our civilisation, are shaped and motivated by our weaknesses as very emotional creatures, instead of our courage and selflessness.

However, I admit that some movies, such is in the case of the Matrix, are simply great because of their inventiveness, the cool factor. Keanu Reeves is the last guy you'd approach to play characters with emotional depth and nuance; and I sure as hell wasn't emotionally affected when I watched the Matrix. The bullet-time, shades, trench-coats, wire-fu in the movie are very imaginative and cool to the point that it's in my personal list without even having to appeal to my emotions. But it's a rarity. I still want good character motivation.

Buried (2010)

I do try to watch movies that are unusual from time to time, and this one's pretty unusual for me. Buried stars Ryan Reynolds and, errrr, that's it. It's just him. He's the only actor in the whole movie. You don't see anybody else. Now you know why I call this a quite unusual movie. And not only there's only one actor throughout the whole movie, the movie only takes place in a coffin. Ryan Reynolds plays an American contractor in Iraq who is captured by terrorists and buried under the sand in a coffin, with only a handphone to gather the ransom money with.

Now a movie with only one actor that takes place in only one very small space might not sound interesting to you, especially if you're essentially trapped there with Ryan Reynolds, but his style of acting works well here. It's slightly light-hearted at times, which propels the plot forward better than if a more dramatic actor were cast in his role. No one wants to watch a guy mope or scream into the phone for one and a half hour, right? Reynolds carries the movie himself quite brilliantly, something that he doesn't showcase quite often in his other movies, and he is also aided by skillful pacing by the director and editor. They ultimately succeed in thrilling and sustaining the audience's interest, despite it being a movie with only one actor and location.

My VERDICT: this movie is a 7/10

TRIVIA: despite the fact that only one actor is seen on-screen, a number of actors are listed in the credit section. They voice the characters called by Reynolds on his handphone.