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.

Upcoming Malay comedies

I'm quite excited about the coming two remaining months of 2014. I stumbled upon two trailers for two comedies that are going to come out in November and December, respectively. They look rather irreverent and feature quite a few stars in the local movie scene.

The first is Lelaki Harapan Dunia (English title: Men Who Save the World) which tells the story of a group of villagers who encounter an abandoned house in the village which is occupied by an illegal African immigrant. Of course they think he's a ghost, orang minyak (literally 'fuel man') to be exact.

Now if you're not familiar with the supernatural element in the region, orang minyak is a man who practices black magic in order to rape or molest maidens (or the other way around, I'm not sure, this is the 21st century), and applies oil all over his body while he's out on the prowl. So all the men in the village band together to try to move the house, and hilarity ensues (including cross-dressing).

According to its Facebook page which I've linked above, the movie has Harun Salim Bachik and Jalil Hamid, two renowned comedic actors in this country, and it is written and directed by Liew Seng Tat. According to page, it has international support, so that is rather impressive, I guess? And from the trailer below, it looks quite promising. I wonder if they're gonna come out with two cuts; one for the more conservative local market, and another, more raunchier cut for international viewing and the festival circuit.

Also from the trailer, it has something which to me is one trademark of Malay movies which I enjoy, the portrayal of community life among Malays, which is employed frequently by comedy film maker Mamat Khalid (whose Zombi Kampung Pisang (2007) I consider the best modern Malay comedy), and U-Wei Shaari (when is he going to release Hanyut?).

***********************

The second trailer I came upon was Terbaik Dari Langit. The literal English title is 'the best from the sky' or something like that, but the formal English (international?) title is Nova. This one is slated for a 25 Dec 2014 release. The official promotional Facebook page bills itself as a road trip movie, and the trailer provides the following synopsis for the plot: 

"Convinced with what he saw 15 years ago was a UFO, Berg sets on a journey with his 4 friends to capture it on film. They begin to realize that the trip is more than what it seems."

From the trailer, it looks like the movie will have one element I enjoy in movies; meta-references to the process of making a movie (or stage production), usually showing an ambitious yet clueless person at the helm. For example like Get Shorty, Adaptation, Tropic Thunder and Topsy Turvy.

It also has Bront Palarae, my favourite local actor whose movies I've never actually watched, and Sharifah Amani (nice to not see her out of a cheesy tv role for a change). It's directed by Nik Amir Mustapha who previously directed KIL.

So I'm very excited to have something to look forward to in the local film scene, for a change. I think the last movie I enjoyed was Songlap (which I enjoyed immensely and have raved about)

That reminds me, I have Bunohan and I STILL haven't watched it. Shame on me.

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.

Collateral (2004)

This Michael-Mann directed film is another underrated movie which I enjoyed immensely. I first watched it a long time ago during a midnight showing as a uni undergraduate without knowing much about it, and I had recently watched it again. It still holds up.

First of all what I like about this movie is the fact that Tom Cruise plays the movie's antagonist, his white hair and another fact which I can't divulge here because it's a spoiler. Tom Cruise almost always plays the good guy in his movies, so it was a nice change. 

Jamie Foxx also isn't as suave as he usually is in most of his movies, playing a taxi driver in this. His other dweebish role that I've seen is in the Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014), as Electro.

The film tells the story of the taxi driver, Max who is forced on gunpoint to drive around an assassin, Vincent (Cruise) who has been hired to assassinate five witnesses of a court case on the same night. Also starring in this movie are Jada Pinket Smith as an attorney and Mark Ruffalo as a detective.

Trailer for the movie

The fact that the movie takes place throughout the duration of one night, and in Max's taxi makes it a quite intimate experience. And the dialogue between the two provides the chemistry, in a not-so-typical way. I mean you wouldn't expect a guy who's held at gunpoint to warm up to his kidnapper, would you?

The GOOD: A satisfyingly intimate experience that interspersed by restrained and not unnecessary action scenes.

The BAD: The soundtrack was a little underwhelming. Mann eschews typical orchestration, but some songs used as accompaniment were a little jarring, especially one song from the rock band Audioslave. The same problem would surface again in Mann's next movie, his movie adaptation of the same TV show which he had produced in the 80's; Miami Vice (2006).

My VERDICT: this movie is a 7/10

TRIVIA: Tom Cruise would play against typecast again in his cameo role as a movie producer, complete with a fat-suit and a bald cap, in Tropic Thunder (2008). Tell me this isn't the most hilarious thing you've seen today.

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.