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.

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).

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.

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.

The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada (2005)

Hi there my dear readers. I’m back today, and today I'm gonna be discussing about a small and little-known movie titled ‘The Three Burials of’. First of all, I find this movie interesting as it is directed by Tommy Lee Jones who also stars in it. Yes, THAT Tommy Lee Jones; of The Fugitive fame. I caught it around two years ago while browsing through the movie channels on Astro. I find it amusing that some of the best movies I’ve seen were discovered by browsing randomly through the TV channels while bored or insomniac. This movie was based on a stage play written by a Mexican playwright Guillermo Arriaga, which was based on the killing of a Mexican teenager by a group of US marines near the US – Mexico border in 1997.

The story begins when a border patrol officer Mike Norton (Barry Pepper); accidentally shoots and kills a Mexican immigrant Melquiades Estrada and quickly and discreetly buries him. Estrada’s good friend; rancher Pete Perkins (Tommy Lee Jones) finds out about the murder and the perpetrator; and proceeds to dig up his friend’s body and kidnap the patrol officer; with the objective of fulfilling Estrada’s request of being buried back in his hometown in Mexico upon his death. The surreal duo; Perkins and the hostage; then trek across the deserted and even more surreal landscape of the border to search for the deceased’s hometown; with the rapidly decomposing body of Melquiades Estrada in tow.

And the surreality of this movie is what I find endearing. The trio are put through several situations that border on the absurd; such as the one scene from ‘The Three Burials’ that is stuck in my mind until this very day; when Perkins and Norton come across a blind old man who lives alone in his house in the middle of the desert with only a transistor radio that is perpetually tuned in to Mexican radio stations to keep him company (“I like the way Spanish sounds, don’t you?”). After offering them a simple meal, the old man asks them to shoot him as he is old but does not want to commit sacrilege by killing himself. They refuse and leave. And when Perkins finds out that his friend’s account of his hometown might not be as straightforward as it sounded, the two of them start questioning the journey and the deceased themselves. The sparseness of the arid landscape further cements the theme to alienation felt by the characters; Perkins, Norton; and the various people in their lives and the journey such as the old man and Perkins’ wife (January Jones).

The performance in this movie is gripping; with Tommy Lee Jones channelling the determination of a friend to fulfil his promise; not quite obsessive; yet not really given to revenge in his harsh treatment of his bare-footed prisoner. And as the prisoner and the patrol officer who is resentful towards his life and his marriage to a too-beautiful-to-be-married-to-a-dumb-country-hick woman; Barry Pepper is simply stellar; whether he is playing at being tortured mentally or physically.

I have to commend my cable TV company; Astro for selecting such good movies for showcase; although they are often aired during non-peak hours. A few movies that I have reviewed so far were because I was simply flipping through the channels; which begs the question; what other worthy movies have I missed, since I don’t watch TV often? Please Astro, promote them better please? Not just the Oscar nominees and winners. Kthxbai.

The GOOD: 

- the movie is quirky in its subject matter, yet engaging in its sparingness

- stellar performance by Tommy Lee Jones, yet again. His directing is commendable, too.

The BAD: the minor mystery regarding Melquiades Estrada’s hometown is left a little too much to interpretation to my liking

My VERDICT: this movie is a 7.5/10

TRIVIA: up until today, this is the only theatrical movie that Tommy Lee Jones has ever directed. (Source: IMDb)

Geng: Pengembaraan Bermula (2009)

As a movie industry, the Malaysian film industry leaves a lot to be desired, quality-wise. Weak acting, implausible plot, exploitative issues and themes are among many issues that have failed to be addressed by those who call themselves the Malaysian filmmakers. However, it’s not my point in this blog to call attention to shoddily-made films; be it international, foreign or local films. I prefer to highlight movies that are made with the desire to set them apart from the rest of the movies, and with that purpose in mind, today we’re gonna look at a Malaysian-made animation film; ‘Geng: Pengembaraan Bermula’ (‘Geng: The Adventure Begins’) which features characters from the by-now immensely popular and ubiquitous TV animation series; ‘Upin & Ipin’.

I remember watching this movie when it came out in the cinemas. My younger siblings were hankering me to take them to watch it one weekend. ‘Upin & Ipin’ had been a staple of Malaysian TV for almost a year by that time, but despite the quality of the animation and the adorable voice acting, it was just a kiddy’s show to me. So I grudgingly relented to my siblings’ pleading, thinking that I wouldn’t enjoy ‘Geng’. After all, a number of Malaysian animation movies have been made in the last decade and each and every single one was disappointing.

However, was I surprised to find myself hysterically laughing only ten minutes into the movie! I was pleasantly amazed at the thought put into the writing; to make sure that the movie is enjoyable to the parents/adults as much as it is to their children. The production team of the studio Les Copaque proves that they weren’t just half-assing it for a quick buck by cashing in from the already popular ‘Upin & Ipin’. The jokes are sincerely funny, the conflict and mystery interesting, and all these on top of what has already made ‘Upin & Ipin’ popular in the region; the titular characters’ adorable shenanigans, charming animation and character design; and hilarious supporting characters. I was actually enjoying the movie!

Now before I get too carried away gushing, let me just tell you about the movie synopsis. When superstitious goings on disrupt the peace and tranquillity of the village of identical twins Upin and Ipin, they enlist the help of their village gang (hence the title), the grandson of their neighbour and his friend to investigate and uncover a sinister plan by a number of bumbling criminals and a portal to another dimension. If the synopsis doesn’t sound anything like a comedy, don’t be alarmed. It is for all intents and purposes a comedy movie, it just so happens that the plot is essentially a horror story happening to characters that are inherently funny.

As a side note, it is worth mentioning and commending the people who came up with the movie; the Shah Alam-based animation studio Les’ Copaque. With ‘Geng’ they proved that their success with ‘Upin & Ipin’ is no fluke and they are run with a pair of steady hands. I’ll definitely be watching out for their future productions. Hopefully they will take over the mantle as the premiere animation studio of this region, if not as its best movie studio.

The GOOD:

- The animation is fluid and the character design is eye-catching. Way ahead than your run-off-the-mill Malaysian animation. Les’ Copaque is no Pixar, sure, but they’ve shown that they have it in themselves to improve and come up with quality films

- It's sincerely funny to children and the adults alike, and not just in a 'kiddy-funny' way

The BAD:

- There’s this awkward musical number that seems to happen for no reason at the beginning. It feels contrived and forced. It’s a good thing it’s at the beginning where things are just about to pick up, so by the end I’ve more or less forgotten about this minor blight.

My VERDICT for ‘Geng’: 7.5/10

TRIVIA: Apparently, ‘Geng’ was in production long before ‘Upin & Ipin’ was made. They decided to come up with an easy-to-made and cheap TV series during a lull in the ‘Geng’ production period when they were securing and negotiating for funding for the film.