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).

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.

Two Malaysian/Malay movies: Lelaki Harapan Dunia and Terbaik Dari Langit

Two months ago, I wrote about two Malaysian/Malay movies the trailer to which came out around the same time. The trailers looked rather hopeful so I made a point to catch both at the cinema.

I'm going to start this review with the one that came out earlier, and also the disappointing one of the two; Lelaki Harapan Dunia, written and directed by Seng Tat Liew. Yep, I said it outright. It's disappointing.

The movie tells the story of a group of villagers who want to relocate an abandoned house mainly due to the wish of Pak Awang who wants the house for his daughter's wedding, when a number of peculiar incidents take place which they attribute to supernatural reasons due to them moving the house. Unbeknownst to them, an African man who's a fugitive from the law has taken refuge in the house.

Sounds like a horror movie right? Or is it a comedy? Or is it drama? Therein lies the problem with Lelaki Harapan Dunia, or its English title Men Who Save the World. The movie tries to be all, without really succeeding to be any. Plot-wise there are also so many threads in it, but most of them are not really resolved by the end of the movie. They are merely teased and repeatedly brought to the fore, but no further explanation is given.

What's with the village idiot/druggie? Why is Pak Awang so insistent on refurbishing the house for his daughter's wedding? And what does he mean by his wistful remark on her getting married out of love? What about the subplot with the price of the camel intended for slaughter? By the end of the movie, these are all not solved. Even the main story is left kind of hanging.

Now that's out of the way, let's talk about the better one, Terbaik Dari Langit which I just watched two days ago. The movie, titled Nova in English, tells the story of Berg (Bront Palarae), a movie director whose obsession with the extraterrestrial and UFO impels him to ask his former school friends to come make an experimental road movie. His friends are up and coming movie star and soon-to-be-married, driver and production technician Ali, and socially-awkward school teacher Toyu. Also in tow is actress Sofea Jane (no, not the real-life actress). His plan involves travelling in a van to shoot the earlier scenes, culminating in shooting the finale at a place where Berg is confident an UFO landing is going to take place. Along the way, they reminisce about their school days and bicker about old grudges, form romance, and criticise Berg's dodgy directing.

Unlike Men, Nova handles multiple subplots better. They don't distract from the main story, and it explains the dynamics of the four school buddies in a non-intrusive way. Furthermore, Langit benefits from a steadier pair of hands in the director's chair, so even if it is funny at times, it never loses track of things.

Another aspect I enjoy about Langit, all the actors AND their characters are used well. The acting is good although nothing to shout about, but most importantly all the characters are well-rounded. Even the comic-reliefs have depth to them. The perpetually nervous Toyu hides a story behind his anxiety at being around them, Sofea is a more significant role than just a pretty face and romantic interest to one of them, the movie star doesn't feel like just another asshole, and Berg's eccentric nature and single-minded obsession is also explained. Furthermore, the young actors portraying the younger version of the leads also look rather similar to their older counterparts, and can act too in the flashback scenes. There are also cameo roles by the late Jalan Ampas era legend Aziz Sattar, and Sharifah Amani.

And in addition to this, this movie is very self-aware and when it comes to the nature of movie-making in Malaysia, taking potshots at Islamic-themed movies that are quite popular at the moment, and the average Malay (Malaysian) audience's reception to movies.

My only gripe about it is the music by the band Pitahati, which is very good, but I think somewhat under-utilised. I wanted more.

I give Lelaki Harapan Dunia 5.5/10 and Terbaik Dari Langit 7/10.

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.