Good endings are bad for you - Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) and La La Land (2017)

Most recently I've watched two movies. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) and La La Land (2017). They're both popular movies so I won't be reviewing them in detail here, but I want to write about their similarities. The topic concerns their endings so be warned that things are going to get SPOILERIFIC up in here.

My main point in this write-up is how these two movies, which flirted with mediocrity by the halfway point, were saved by their downer endings, and improved my opinion of them by the time the credits rolled.

Rogue One

I'm not really a Star Wars fan. I always thought of them as soaps, as family drama in space, a reputation that George Lucas made worse (at least to me) with the prequel trilogy. But somehow I've always managed to catch them in the cinema when a new one comes out. I am a child of capitalism, after all. I watched The Force Awakens when it came out in 2015, and was left underwhelmed by it. It was more of the same, with plot points practically ripped from the pages of A New Hope script.

I still decided to go watch Rogue One when it came out, and by the halfway point I found it not too dissimilar from the previous ones. Another family saga, another abandoned child, Stormtroopers who can't shoot for shit while they get picked off by the protagonists. Yawn.

But then the ending came, and it completely changed my mind! Why? Because almost all of the main characters died, blown to smithereens by the Death Star on that beach planet!

That's honestly very refreshing! For so long we've seen the heroes surviving battles and assaults in the previous movies, and for once they decided to go with a downer ending!

And it's not just a matter of my cynicism being satisfied, I like it because it shows the cost of war and the sacrifices that the grunts, these practically expendable Force-less, non-Jedi grunts, have to make in order to assist the Rebellion. There's no medal presentation ceremony and big smiles at the end, only the grim acceptance that the job was completed at a massive loss of lives.

And no other scene showed this better than the one towards the very end. Darth Vader himself boarded an escaping Rebel ship that was carrying the blueprint of the Death Star, and he mowed down a dozen of officers who could do nothing but hope that the time he would take to hack all of them down to death would be just long enough for the data to be smuggled to safety.

It was a brilliant effort by English director Gareth Edwards, who last directed Godzilla (2014), which I enjoyed immensely, although the receptions to it were split down the middle.

It also scored bonus points with me as it achieved one other thing; explain a major plot hole in A New Hope. How could a major weapon of mass destruction, the crown jewel of the Empire, be designed in such a way that a critical flaw can be accessed externally? As it turned out, the flaw was included by its reluctant chief engineer, the father of the movie's protagonist. Brilliant.

La La Land

I've been wanting to watch this musical ever since the first time I heard that catchy song in its trailer. It also stars my favourite actor and actress, Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone as two star-crossed lovers.

But boy was I in for a surprise. I had expected something of a more conventional, costume-and-choreography, song-and-dance Broadway-style musical. I was let down as early as the first song, despite it being perhaps the most conventional number in the musical.

First of all, it's the music that turned me off. Gosling's character is a jazz musician, and almost all of the tunes are jazz ones. And while most stage musicals, and those adapted to the screen, are set in exotic historical settings, La La Land is set in the present time (I had thought it was set in the 1950's or 60's Hollywood from the trailer).

I suppose this is a more of a European/French-style musical? Think Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964), which I actually haven't seen at all.

Honestly, I would have left the cinema halfway through, if not for the fact that I was there with a girlfriend, and she was leaning against my shoulder asleep. And Gosling and Stone's singing, they have not been classically-trained which I expected from actors in movie musicals.

But just like Rogue One, La La Land's ending turned my opinion on its head. Simply put, the two lovers do not end up together, which is shown in a bittersweet revelation. I respect that commitment to showing what is most likely to happen in real life, that there is no happy ending, even when there are two or three scenes preceding the ending that tease the audience into believing that they both will end up together again.

And when the movie ended, it turned out that the two songs I heard in the trailer were literally the only songs I like from the whole movie. Cheeky bastards.

My VERDICT: Rogue One gets a 7.5 from me, while La La Land has landed itself a 7/10 rating.

On an unrelated note, I should really look into talking to a therapist.

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.

The return of the strong, silent type lead in Drive (2011)

It's been quite sometime since strong, silent male lead is 'in' in Hollywood. It used to be John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, but I guess they sort of fell into disinterest with the loss of audience interest in westerns. In the late 80's early 90's we had wise-cracking, gun-blazing action heroes like Arnold and Bruce Willis, and in the 2000's the taciturn hero made something of a comeback, although it is not entirely similar to those usually found in old westerns.

Jason Bourne brought this trope into the frenetic, shaky-cam action genre. Then EON Studio decided they should emulate Bourne with James Bond, and they rebooted the franchise with a younger, less charming, unsmiling Bond. I see a bit of this trope in Clive Owen's gunman character in Shoot Em Up too. But they are not exactly similar to the roles played by John Wayne and Clint Eastwood, in the sense that they are usually characters who are always on the backfoot, being chased by the bad guys after they were double-crossed or betrayed. They are very vulnerable. On the scale of white-knight to anti-hero, they are more often than not closer to the former, whereas the older characters always have this conniving streak in them, even if what they are fighting for is something good. They are always one step ahead of the bad guys, and action is almost never the focus of the movies they are in. They do shoot guns or rifles, but not in a dual-wielding-dive-from-behind-cover type of shooting. And they are not martial artists, their fights are brawls, or fistfights.

This is why I love Nicolas Winding Refn's Drive, his Hollywood debut. The Danish director's movie has minimal dialogue, and the casting of Ryan Goesling as the lead works really well with the lack of dialogue. The story is about a mechanic, stunt and getaway driver who befriends his neighbour and her young son. Things unravel when the woman's husband comes back from prison, and the Driver (he is unnamed throughout the movie) is embroiled with several underworld figures. Playing the neighbour is Carey Mulligan, and the movie is supported by Ron Perlman as a mob boss, Bryan Cranston as the Driver's friend, Oscar Isaac as the neighbour's husband and Mad Men's Christina Hendricks.

The movie shows the kind of man Goesling's character is, a loner who is efficient at what he does, even in speech. He is able to convey what he feels (or that he's hiding something) with very few words, and the progression in his relationship with his neighbour is enjoyable to watch. Even when he is in a scene with other characters, they talk more than he does.

I talked about the scheming part of the strong silent type, and you see the Driver doing this, even though he ultimately does it not for himself. And unlike the slightly similar heroes of the 2000's, he is violent (God, the elevator scene), but not in a gun-blazing way.

And what really sells it for me is that Goesling is not a typical rough-looking muscle-bound, tough guy. He's physically a bit of a pretty boy, used to be one of those Disney kids, and this contrast makes his movie persona even more enigmatic and interesting. He would go on to play this type of character in another movie, The Place Beyond the Pines (2012). Although this movie isn't as good as Drive, I still enjoyed his performance in it. I guess the strong, silent type lead has a torch-bearer in Ryan Goesling.

In addition, this movie has a nice 80's vibe going on with the music (check out the soundtrack) and the cinematography, although it's not actually set in that decade.

The GOOD: Good story made into a exceptional movie by Goesling's performance.

The BAD: Same criticism of an earlier movie of Refn's that I reviewed, Valhalla (2009).The ultra-violence. The shotgun-to-the head scene, the elevator scene. I kind of get the need for blood, but what does gore serve to the audience?

My VERDICT: this movie is a 7.5/10

TRIVIA: Refn and Goesling would collaborate again for Only God Forgives (2013), which I haven't seen. The reviews are not very good though, and I don't really feel like putting up with another head-stomping scene if the movie isn't any good.

Song and dance

Musical movies are one genre that I enjoy watching immensely . There's something about musicals that is hard to dislike. A good musical usually has a combination of these three elements; a well-choreographed dance sequence, catchy songs and hilarious turns by a number of the characters.

The funny thing is, I used to dismiss the genre as fluff, while growing up. I saw Mary Poppins, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, and The Sound of Music, all of which was a little too childish for my liking so I decided to not pay too much attention to the genre as a whole. Furthermore, I found it very, very hard to suspend my disbelief at the sight of a bunch of people breaking into song and dance mid-conversation.

But one movie arrived to change my perception of the whole genre and the potential it has to escape beyond the fluff and escapism.

Chicago (2002)

Initially, I had heard about this movie and its multiple Oscar wins, but since it is a musical, I had not paid it any mind. And then in university I got involved in theatre and someone showed it and I was completely blown away by it. The movie is about two stage performers who murder their respective partners who then take advantage of their trials to vie and stay in the spotlight. First of all, it succeeded in making me suspend my disbelief with the whole song and dance schtick, using the 'it's all in their head' method of explaining away the characters penchant for singing and dancing. I bought it, and afterwards I found it easier to accept the notion that in musical-movie universe, people do it all the time, even when they do not employ 'it's all in the head' method.

Secondly, Chicago is very cynical and is a dark comedy. It's lampooning of narcissism, infidelity, the justice system and the act of murder sits well with my preference, after the unicorn-sunshine-and-rainbow aesthetics of the Disney musicals. 

Finally, of course it would not have worked if not for its song and dance. The songs are all catchy, and after watching more musicals, I realised that the choreography in Chicago is magnificent. A lot of musical movies unimaginatively transplants their stage production (where most musical movies originate from) onto the silver-screen, but Chicago understands and utilises the advantage owned by the silver screen, to do more than just duplicate its stage production. I give this one a solid 10/10.

Grease (1978)

This movie needs very little explanation, and I also enjoyed it. Like Chicago, its strength is its evergreen songs, and despite its high-school setting (and the oldest-looking American high-schoolers), is at times crass and deals with topics that are not suitable for teenagers such as teenage pregnancy, and contraception. The choreography is a bit straightforward, but every scene with John Travolta is simply mesmerising. No wonder he was the hot stuff in the 70's. Grease gets an 8/10 from me.

The Producers (2005)

This is among the few relatively-recent musical movies that I enjoy immensely. The movie, about a theatre producer and his associate who come up with a scheme to stage a sure-to-fail production to fleece the investors' money, has a bit of a kooky beginning. It originated as a very successful non-musical movie by renowned comic and lampoonist Mel Brooks in 1968, and then in the 2000's he adapted it into an equally successful stage musical, so from there it was only natural that it would find its way to the silver screen. It is a bit of a straightforward adaptation, but since the source material is already good to begin with, the movie adaptation is able to get away with it.

In addition to being hummable, the songs are downright hilarious and at times almost juvenile, and have that trademark Mel Brooks-wit. It is not as dark as Chicago, but the crass-meter is through the roof with Producers. It lampoons everything from homosexuality, Nazism, old ladies, and the Swede. I remember watching it at the cinema and getting my stomach cramped from laughing too hard. And what was even more remarkable, not one second of it was censored by FINAS. Somebody there must love musicals. Or is gay. This, too, gets an 8/10 from me.

Honourable mention

West Side Story (1961) - A bit serious for a musical, but it does drama very well. Wonderful choreography.

Les Miserables (2012) - Strong first act is let down by focus on weepy love story in the second. Not really the movie's fault, the source material goes that way.

Hairspray (2007) - Similar origin to Producers. Non-musical movie gets turned into a stage musical into a movie musical. Bubble-gummy and colourful first half is replaced by preachy love-letter to multi-culturalism in the second.

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.

Death Race (2008)

Hey everyone. Apologies, long hiatus, work, etc, etc, etc. Now that's out of the way, let's get down to business. I don't know whether I give off the art-house, elitist aficionado vibe, but I do enjoy straight-to-the-point action movies. Nothing wrong with them, but I think the biggest mistake that these kinds of movies make is taking themselves too seriously.

This is why I like Death Race (2008), starring Jason Statham as Jason Statham. OK I jest, but seriously, dude plays himself in all his movies. Anyway, he plays a wrongfully-accused convict in a depression-era near future, who is sent to prison for the crime of murdering his wife. He is then made to take part in a violent car race with the other convicts that is televised to the whole world by the prison warden, in order to gain his freedom and be reunited with his daughter.

I mean that's the gist of it. I don't want to tell you more, because it's a movie about a violent car race. You have to see it for yourselves. Think 18SG Speed Racer. 

What I really like about the movie is that the director Paul W. S. Anderson, understands that it is an action movie and gets straight down to business. You can scarcely catch your breath before the carpet is wrung from underneath you and you're thrown into another action sequence. The movie knows its lead is an actor with the acting chops of a dinner table, so it does not try to veer into dramatic scenes for long. It's one car race scene after another. Come to think of it, it could be that the pacing was a necessity after all, and not an artistic decision.

Which is why I can't stand the Fast and Furious franchise. It's also about dudes who race cars (or used to be), but they always make it melodramatic. "You're my best friend, how could you betray me?!" "How could you pretend you were dead all this while we grieved for you?!" Shut your pie hole, Vinnie D.

I remember thinking to myself right after the credit starts rolling: "Hmm, that was...efficient." The busier I get these days, and the less time I have to watch movies I have, the more I think that more movies should be like this. If they know that they are no Inception or A Few Good Men, be quick about it and show us the good bits. Enough talking and DEFINITELY no crying please. No way they're gonna really convince us that the giant space-faring robots are TOTALLY GOING TO DESTROY EARF, GUIZZZE, we can't really relate to the threat on the life of the US president that is posed by the Muslim but suspiciously multi-racial looking terrorists, and yeah you paid too much for the lead actress so now you have to shoehorn her naked quivering form into an awkward love scene to make it worth it.

Intro set piece, exposition, car chase, final exposition, second set piece, plot twist, final set piece, boom! Movie's over in under 90 minutes, $100 mil in worldwide collection, 55-65 rating on Metacritic. That's how it should be done.

The GOOD: Enjoyable for an action movie, and does not overstay its welcome with our attention.

My VERDICT: 7/10. Knows what it's supposed to do, and does it well.

TRIVIA: This movie is actually a remake of Death Race 2000 (1975), starring David Carradine and Sylvester Stallone.

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.

Awakenings (1990)

Hey readers. Sorry it's been awhile since I last updated this blog. Been busy with my new blog, go check it out. It's about my experience of moving to a rural part of my country. Well that's enough plugging. Today I want to check out a movie which I had the good fortune of watching on one of those channel surfing sessions during a sleepless night. The movie is Awakenings, adapted from the memoirs of the renowned neurologist Dr Oliver Sacks (portrayed in this movie by Robin Williams, yes, THAT Robin Williams), detailing his discovery of the ability of a drug which was initially used to treat parkinson's disease patients to also revive catatonic patients who were in a long-term coma after succumbing to a pandemic in the 1920's. The movie details his subsequent experience with the revived patients and their readjustment to modern society; specifically his relationship with one difficult patient; played by the great Robert De Niro.

Right off the bat I want to talk about the performance of the two leads, the selling point of this movie. Robin Williams, in a then rare dramatic role for him, ditched and reined in his comedic talents for this movie to play a different game altogether, to portray a very down-to-earth scientific man who is also uneasy around people. He also played his role with a tinge of sadness that is befitting the role in the context of the movie. Admittedly, I don't know much about the real Oliver Sacks, but his character in the movie reflects the sadness that is felt by the revived patients, the knowledge that the world has changed and left them behind in a mental hospital, the sadness that their youth had been wasted lying on a bed. You feel sorry for the good doctor, even though he isn't one of the patients.

Robert De Niro's performance as one of the awakened patients; Leonard is equally great. Leonard is a diffcult person, and the frustration he feels at the restrictions placed by the hospital and researches on him is bordering on rage. And the 1990's De Niro is solid, and he gelled together with Robin WIlliams when they are in the same scene, never overshadowing one another and always complementing the other actor's performance.

So go catch this great movie and enjoy the performance. It makes you think about how precious life is and how much we take it for granted. And of course I've been holding out on the plot points so as not to spoil it for you.

The GOOD: Brilliant performance by the two leads

The BAD: Honestly I cant remember, not that there wasn't any, but it's been a long time since I last watched it so I dont remember the flaws of what is essentially a good movie

My VERDICT: this movie is a 7.5/10

TRIVIA: try and find a young Vin Diesel in this movie

Seraphim Falls (2006)

Today we’re gonna take a look at a movie of a genre that I’ve never discussed before; western. I don’t know why, but despite its popularity, the western genre has never really caught on with me. I remember watching Clint Eastwood’s ‘Unforgiven’ after reading a lot of rave reviews for it, but I was left feeling unimpressed after the credit rolled. I have always chalked this failure to appreciate westerns down to cultural differences, since I’m not American.

However I’ve had the pleasure of watching this little-known western movie which I thoroughly enjoyed; ‘Seraphim Falls” on satellite TV. It stars two of the most solid male actors of their generation; Liam Neeson and former James Bond; Pierce Brosnan in a story about a former Confederate colonel (Neeson) who doggedly hunts and tracks down a Union general (Brosnan) after the end of the American Civil War to exact revenge. Brosnan and Neeson’s performance together is what drives this otherwise sparse and lonely movie. Now I say sparse and lonely in a good way, as their characters obsessively try to outsmart, evade and track down each other by slinking away into the farthest and darkest reaches of 19th century America.

The director of this movie; David von Ancken plies his trade mostly in the TV industry, having directed a number of ‘CSI:NY’ episodes, the David Duchovny vehicle ‘Californication’ and also ‘The Vampire Diaries’. It’s great that he shows adept skills in making the transition from the small screen to the silver screen. Plus it’s not everyday that you get to work with Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan for your first movie. The movie presents to the viewers the loneliness that is faced by someone who is obsessed about anything as he foregoes all logic and reason to pursue his purpose in life, as exemplified by Neeson’s character. This movie could be yet just another revenge movie, but for the untamed beauty of the movie’s setting and the cinematography work with which the director used to capture this beauty.

So if you can, do catch this movie. It’s not awfully remarkable or anything like that, but it delivers its promises and the acting is top notch.

The GOOD:
- The performance of the two leads is very good, feeding off and working from each other.
The BAD:
- The ending might be a little too open-ended for some. But pay attention to the lady who sells the snake oil and you’ll get it.
My VERDICT: I give ‘Seraphim Falls’ a 7.5/10
TRIVIA: Although the two lead characters are Americans, they are both played by non-Americans.

Let Me In (2010)

There are movies that are technically superior, that film students pore over and discuss countless times in lectures and among themselves, talking about how they hope to emulate the camera angles, editing, and pacing. And then there are movies that are not technically perfect by a long shot, but you can’t help but fall in love with nonetheless, watch repeatedly again and again and dwell on for weeks. The kind of movies that you show to your friends only for them to ridicule and balk at you for having such a childish and unhealthy obsession over, so you are forced to retreat to the dark recesses of the internet that are occupied by internet forums and their users, perusing poorly-written fan fictions, simply wasting away in your room and shunning the harsh sunshine, because GODDAMMIT YOU JUST CAN’T HELP IT.

Whew. I have had the fortune of watching such a movie a few weeks back. It’s called ‘Let Me in’. Now before any of you highbrow cinephiles tut-tut me for not knowing that it’s a remake of the Swedish movie ‘Let the Right One in’ and its source material; a novel with the same title, see, I’ve just proven that I know them and I’ve watched the original movie. It’s just that I watched LMI before I watched LTROI. Let’s just get that out of the way. No need to be so condescending, sheesh.

Anyway the movie tells about Owen, a lonely, neglected and bullied boy who strikes up a friendship with a girl; Abby (Chloe Moretz) who moves in next to his apartment with her father. Meanwhile, the residents of his town are getting murdered by what is thought to be a satanic cult by the local detective. After awhile, he senses that Abby might not be as innocent and vulnerable as she appears and all the murders might be connected to the reclusive father and daughter, despite their blossoming attraction to each other.

Coming back to my obsession with this movie. It’s funny how I only watched this movie because I couldn’t sleep one night and decided to go downstairs to watch TV, thinking that maybe a few minutes of mundane off-peak hours TV might put me to sleep. ‘Let Me in’ was just starting and before I knew it, I had watched it until the end, not feeling even a wee bit sleepy despite the movie’s slow pacing. At first I simply thought it was good and went straight to bed, but after awhile I found myself strangely wanting to watch it again and I did so repeatedly the following week. I simply lapped up every scene the two young leads are together in, and boy they are simply good together.

Kodi Smit-McPhee who plays Owen; gives a solid performance as the friendless latchkey twelve-year old who is shut in in his own world and occasionally engaging in casual voyeurism and eavesdropping. But the true star of ‘Let Me in’ is definitely Chloe Moretz; the child star of movies such as ‘500 Days of Summer’ and ‘Kick-Ass’. She was good in these two movies, but in LMI she’s simply brilliant, and her performance is something I’ve never seen in a child actor since the young Natalie Portman’s turn in Luc Besson’s ‘Leon’. She successfully toes the fine line between the role of the vulnerable, lonely pre-adolescent girl who finds love yet is cautious of it; and the ferocity of her character’s darker side (can’t tell too much. Go watch it!). She reminds you of that one girl when you were a kid, whom you were madly in love with it, the girl who might probably have simply ignored you depending on how you were as a child; and watching Chloe in LMI will make you think “This must be how it would’ve been if she had liked me back” Boo hoo. The supporting cast must also be commended for their refrained yet nuanced performances; especially those of Abby’s father and the local detective investigating the series of murders.

However this is not to say that the movie does not benefit from other aspects. It definitely benefits from its gloominess and isolation (one thing that separates it from the slightly brighter original version), thanks to the snowy setting and the scenes that mostly take place during the night, and the slow pacing definitely amplifies the isolation felt by the characters that you yourself can almost taste said loneliness. The director; Matt Reeves (‘Cloverfield’) deserves praises for adapting this movie well by sticking close to the original because it works. Some critics have stated their displeasure at his decision to almost copy scene-by-scene the original movie, but this non-professional critic disagrees. It’s better to come up with an accurate copy of a good piece of art than to modify the original work only for the remake to fall flat, don’t you think so? And to be fair, when you really watch it; you’ll find out that LMI is markedly different from LTROI; especially when it comes to Abby and Owen’s characters. It’s good to know that Reeves is equally adept at directing a slow, character-driven genre-bending movie, as he is making a loud summer blockbuster monster movie.

And finally from me, what also makes this movie truly good is that how little is provided to the audience in way of explanation of the characters’ back story and the ending. Yes, the ending. If you view it objectively, you’ll realise just how dreadful the fate that awaits Abby and Owen is, despite the tenderness with which the final scene is shot. This movie leaves a lot of room for discussions, or if you’re the type who keeps to yourself; you can fill in the gaps in the movie with your imagination.

That is all from me for now. I have an internet forum to descend back into. 

The GOOD:

1) Chloe Moretz’ performance specifically, and the acting in general. I hope she gets more mature roles in the future. The one to watch in the coming years

2) The mood of the movie as brought about by the sparse lighting, set design and the music. Instant melancholy

The BAD:

- May cause temporary yet intense melancholy, the desire to keep re-watching it and the unwillingness to exit your room and get stuff done

My VERDICT: it’s hard for me to be objective in rating this movie while I’m unhealthily obsessed with it at the moment. So what I’ll do for now is give it an 8/10 and come back in the future to revise this rating with a more objective eye. Fair enough?

TRIVIA:

1) The car-crash scene, despite playing out as a single shot in the movie, is actually composed of different shots that are then CGI-ed and seamlessly edited together. Source

2) Ariel Winter who plays Alex in the TV series Modern Family, also auditioned for the role of Abby. Source 

Hantu Kak Limah Balik Rumah (2010)

Wow, two posts on one day after almost a half-year hiatus! Can my name and the word 'industrious' finally be uttered in the same breath without the universe imploding unto itself? This time I'd like to review the sequel to a movie I've reviewed earlier, Zombi Kampung Pisang. And frankly speaking, it is a movie I've been waiting for quite sometime considering how much I adored the campiness and enjoyed the humour of its predecessor. If you are wondering what Zombi is about, go read my review of it first. But don't worry, you do not need to watch Zombi to follow the story of Kak Limah.

Kak Limah tells about the return of Husin (Awie) to Kg Pisang from working abroad. Upon his return, he realises that a lot have changed since his departure. Usop the former cultural-dancer is now a paraplegic after a very tragic yet of course very comical mishap and Usop's sweetheart has had her heart broken by him one too many times. Oh, there's also a small matter of him seemingly living next door to the ghost of his neighbour, Kak Limah who is intent on haunting the villagers. Just like their previous run with zombies, this time the villagers of Kg Pisang will have to unite again in facing a horror of comedic proportions in Mamat Khalid's latest film.

The GOOD:

- there’s this running gag that is really funny in its suddenness and abruptness. Mamat knows this and he milks it for all it’s worth

The BAD:

1) the film is essentially a one-trick pony. A lot of the jokes are only mildly funny at best and they seem to drag

2) The love song in the middle of the movie. Although it’s quite nice to see Awie channelling his early 90’s Sembilu persona (complete with the hog and all), the sequence is simply awkward and it does not serve the plot in any way

3) The lack of talents. Zombi benefited from being an ensemble movie, with the job of carrying the movie shared equally among the lead actors and the cameos alike (man, my stomach hurt so MUCH from laughing so HARD at the late Loloque’s cameo as part of a hair-metal band who lost their way on the way to performing at a fun-fair). Whereas the main action of Kak Limah is more focused on Awie’s Husin, the disturbances from Kak Limah which he faces and also the sub-plot of him trying to win back his ex’s heart which I totally do not care about. Awie is fine as an actor in my opinion, but as a comedic actor he still has a lot to learn. Maybe Que Haidar asked for too much money for the sequel

4) As an extension of the previous point, Kak Limah seems to also lack the communal spirit previously portrayed in Zombi. I know there are scenes with the villagers in this film (including scene-stealing smaller characters such as the mini-bus driver and the FPS-obsessed, shotgun wielding boy) these scenes are not as numerous and the characters are not as diverse. I don’t know why, but I’ve always thought that Malay movies benefit from portraying the whole community as opposed to just portraying individuals alone. Not because they promote moral values or things like that, but I’ve always been drawn towards the festiveness and the cacophony generated in such movies such as U-Wei Shaari’s Isteri, Perempuan dan… and the late P Ramlee’s many movies

5) The ending of the movie seems to undo the whole message of this movie. I can’t say it explicitly without spoiling it for those of you who haven’t watched it. It’s enough for me to just say that it’s like attending a speech on Malay supremacy and rights delivered by Nazi Par… I mean PERKASA’s Ibrahim Ali only to have him say as conclusion that everything in this world belongs to God and nobody really has exclusive rights to anything

So my VERDICT for this movie is 5/10. I’ve seen better from Mamat Khalid, and this is proven by the good to bad points ratio that I’ve listed above. I'm disappointed, considering how good the first one was.

TRIVIA: In an interview with The Star during the movie's launch, Mamat jokingly remarked that he only made the movie because he was running out of money. After watching the movie, I'm not quite sure that his remark was just a joke.

Valhalla Rising (2009)

Hello imaginary readers. It's been awhile since I posted in this blog. Have been busy. I got myself a job (because even movie reviewers need money to eat, they don't simply subsist on sarcasm and sass) and a lot of other stuff. Well let's get straight to the point. Fortunately in my hectic schedule I still found time to watch movies so here is my review of the movie 'Valhalla Rising' which came out in 2009. This movie was directed by Nicolas Winding Refn and features Mads Mikkelsen as the main character One Eye; a laconic Viking warrior who follows a group of Crusaders who are on their way to the Holy Land.

Well to be honest, I was expecting a typical Viking movie with the whole plunder and pillage and the works that usually come with with movies which include Vikings. But boy was I wrong. This movie is quite slow and pays equal importance to the dialogue. But when it happens, boy it is violence, glorious violence. You get disembowelment, decapitation, impaling, eye-gouging, you name it, it has it. Which sort of explains the need for the slow pacing. You're all bored and yawning for something to please happen already, and then the pace picks up in a crescendo and you know some guy is gonna get stabbed in the eye and you squirm in your seat, expecting the wonderfully dreadful. Oh boy!

But I have to admit that at times this movie escapes my comprehension. The dream sequences are huge wtf to me and it took me a while to realise a major plot point.

The GOOD:

1) The violence is sickening and unabashed in this movie

2) Mikkelsen did a solid job in portraying such an effectively ruthless character without speaking any line

The BAD:

1) I don't get the movie. What's with the rouge dream sequences?

2) The ending. So, uh, that's all there is?

Moi VERDICT: I'm giving it 6/10 because I simply DON'T GET IT.