That Movie Blogger Fella

The Malaysian social network

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 03:25:00 +0000

Relationship Status
My rating:

Now here's a neat idea for a film: a Love Actually-style (or God forbid, Valentine's Day-style) series of interconnected stories that each represent the various relationship statuses that Facebook allows you to post, namely Single, In A Relationship, It's Complicated, Engaged, Married, Divorced and Widowed. (What, no Separated?) And at the same time, a look at modern love and romance in the era of online social networking. Not a bad little high-concept idea at all, one you'd expect someone in Hollywood to have come up with before Khairil M. Bahar, the Malaysian filmmaker who wrote, directed, edited and even acted in it. I've seen his short in 2009's 15Malaysia project, which I thought was cute but otherwise unimpressive; also, he appears to be part of - or at least close friends with - Perantauan Pictures, under whose banner this movie was released, and whose previous feature film I found to be less than impressive (although it seems Khairil wasn't involved in that one).

Fortunately, Relationship Status is definitely better than The Joshua Tapes. But it kinda stumbled in the last lap.

Dave (Gavin Yap) is a magazine writer in an open relationship with Anna (Davina Goh) - or at least, he was, until they had an argument. His roommate Joe (Khairil Bahar) is still recovering from a bad breakup. His editor Selena (Susan Lankester) is still coming to terms with the recent death of her husband. The IT guy at his office Eugene (Benji Lim) is ready to propose to his filmmaker girlfriend May (Amanda Ang), but faces opposition from his family, particularly his sister (Adeline Ong). Two subjects in May's documentary film are Nina (Shuba Jay) and her boyfriend (Alfred Loh) who met on Facebook. The office's receptionist Hawa (Ruzana Ibrahim) is pregnant and happily married to her husband Ramli (Baki Zainal). Her old schoolmate is Trisha (Daphne Iking), who is going through a divorce from her husband Jason (Tony Eusoff) following his affair with Anna - whose torch that she still carries for him is partly the cause of her argument with Dave.

Relationship Status is that rarest of animals: the Malaysian-made film that caters to an urban, sophisticated, English-speaking audience. Which is pretty damn rare in a film industry that almost exclusively targets unsophisticated Malays and Mandarin-speaking Chinese (even if that second market was created a scant 2 years ago). And I think it's one that that audience would enjoy a lot. The script is witty and often very funny, with occasional ribald humour and even a masturbation joke. There are a couple of mentions of Sid's Pub, a KL watering hole whose regular clientele are exactly the kind of people this movie is aimed at. There's even a Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference, which isn't explained for anyone who doesn't recognise the line from that book. One of the joys of local films is getting to see people, places and situations from your own life up on screen, and this movie has it in spades for a segment of Malaysians who've never had that opportunity.

Particularly in regards to its depiction of love and romance in the Facebook era. Khairil's screenplay displays a great deal of insight into how online social media affects relationships, and I'm sure it'll evoke many a pang of recognition - whether it's the heartbroken guy who keeps stalking his ex's FB profile, or the grieving widow trying to guess her late husband's password, or the disapproving family who cites pictures of the girlfriend partying at clubs as grounds for their disapproval. But despite its insightfulness, there's still a somewhat, well, gormless approach to Facebook and online social media. It's like Selena's magazine's upcoming cover story on social media. Yes, just that - social media. Anything specific about social media? No, just social media - like it's still this shiny newfangled thing worthy of magazine cover stories in freakin' 2012. That's what I mean by gormless.

Which brings us to the film's biggest problem: it has no ending. I'm not kidding. Almost every single one of these stories ends with absolutely no resolution; one exception being Dave's and Anna's, and even that one employs the cliche of the guy running across the city to tell the girl he loves her. (The other one being Selena's, who manages to come to terms with her husband's passing - but then again, does she ever actually find his FB password? We don't know!) Does Eugene stand up to his asshole family? Does Joe get over himself? Does Hawa's and Ramli's marriage survive? Do Trisha and Jason reconcile? None of these questions are answered, which is just bloody frustrating. Every couple's relationship in this story either starts off rocky or becomes rocky, and the movie pretty much just leaves them there. And for the ones who start off happy but become troubled, it's always because of Facebook.

Seriously, I think most people will come out of this movie with one takeout: "Facebook ruins relationships!" Which is just an annoyingly Luddite attitude that I'd been led to believe this film was above. I don't know if it was deliberate or accidental, but with a character like Nina - the Facebook addict who suspects her boyfriend is cheating on her just because he talks to someone on the phone whom she doesn't know, which makes her a bloody shallow and insecure twit - it doesn't seem very accidental. It's like Khairil wants to raise the question of whether Facebook is a good or a bad thing, and seems to learn toward the latter - which is a bad answer, because it's the wrong question. Facebook is neither a good nor bad thing; it is a thing, that has already irreversibly changed the way we communicate. Just like it's past time for any magazine that has any shred of relevance to write stories about social media, it's past time to ask whether it's good or bad. What we should be asking is how to make it good and avoid the bad; to use it well, instead of allowing it to magnify our worst instincts.

For a while there, Relationship Status was almost the movie to ask, and attempt to answer, that question. The fact that it failed is why I didn't rate it higher - but the fact that it's still an entertaining, well-written, well-crafted little film is why I didn't rate it lower. (Reasonably well-acted too; nothing outstanding, but nothing jarringly poor either. With the exception of Will Quah, who seemed to forget that he's playing a guy who's father had just died.) I'm still quite mightily impressed by Khairil's writing and direction, and I'd love to see more from him. I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to its target audience of English-educated, Facebook-connected, in-love-or-seeking-it young Malaysians, as I'm sure they'd enjoy it. And it's still got a killer high concept, one that may even earn it some attention from overseas. It's just a pity it didn't fully live up to all that potential.

NEXT REVIEW: Ah Beng The Movie: Three Wishes
Expectations: bit iffy about this one

Flying blobs of blurry CGI

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 12:19:00 +0000

Flying Swords of Dragon Gate
My rating:

I seem to be alone in my indifference to Tsui Hark's previous film, Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame. Folks like Roger Ebert and Noel Murray of AV Club have given it glowing reviews, and though you could chalk that up to gweilos' unfamiliarity with - and therefore lower standards for - Asian martial arts movies, it also made a ton of money in Hong Kong. But there's simply no denying that Tsui made some of the greatest Hong Kong films of all time, including quite a few personal favourites. This, plus Kozo of LoveHKFilm's positive review, finally convinced me to check out Flying Swords of Dragon Gate, a sort-of-sequel-cum-reimagining of his own 1992 Dragon Inn, and maybe give the new Tsui Hark - as opposed to '80s-and-'90s Tsui Hark - another chance.

It's better than Detective Dee. But like that movie, it's still a mess.

The thoroughly corrupt East and West Bureaus, given carte blanche powers by the Emperor, rule Ming Dynasty China with an iron grip. But Zhao Huai'an (Jet Li) opposes them, and has just crippled the West Bureau by taking out its leader (Gordon Liu). But the head of the East Bureau, the eunuch Yu Huatian (Aloys Chen), is a much more cunning opponent - however, he has his hands full tracking down a runaway palace maid named Su Huirong (Mavis Fan) who may be pregnant with the Emperor's illegitimate child. Huirong is rescued and aided by a masked female warrior (Zhou Xun) - who has also adopted the name Zhao Huai'an - and taken to the Dragon Inn, a "black inn" at the edge of the desert and frequented by various criminals and lowlifes. But whilst there, they must hide from the West Bureau men hunting them, led by their Deputy Chief (Sheng Chien), who cross swords with a band of Tartar bandits led by Princess Buludu (Guey Lun-Mei) who are also shacking up there. And then a travelling warrior named Gu Shaotang (Li Yuchun) arrives to add even more fuel to the fire - especially when her companion, a goofy non-fighter named Wind Blade (Aloys Chen), is a dead ringer for Yu Huatian. It turns out some of these folks are searching for a lost, treasure-filled city hidden under the desert sands - plus, there's a sandstorm of Biblical proportions heading their way.

LoveHKFilm probably put it best: this is a throwback to the wild, freewheeling, purely fun Hong Kong period kungfu movies of the '90s, a trend that Tsui himself probably created single-handedly. I have no particular love for films of this sort, although I reckon I can enjoy one if it's really good. This isn't. There are fun parts, but there's just too much of Tsui's kitchen-sink approach (that also spoiled Detective Dee) to coalesce into a proper movie - or even a proper narrative. There's two characters going by the same name, both of whom have a tragic backstory together; there's a damsel in distress that at least one of them is trying to rescue (or is she? And why?); then there's the inn which has a penchant for serving human flesh, and there's more than a fair bit of casual cannibalism here; then there's a new faction of dubious morality that lock horns with the established antagonists; then another two characters of mysterious intentions arrive at the inn, one of whom introduces the wacky face double hijinks. All this before even the lost city.

Yes, it's all a great big mess; albeit an entertaining one, but only fitfully so. Kungfu films of the '90s showcased spectacular fight scenes, even if they were usually of the wire-fu variety - but the artificial, CGI-laden ones here will make a martial arts aficionado long for the good old days of wire-fu. They're dull, and the cartoony jumping-and-flying CGI figures are more likely to evoke laughs rather than thrills. (Tsui hired the SFX supervisor of Avatar for this film, and to be fair, the environmental vistas are pretty good - the human figures, not so much.) Maybe because it was filmed in 3D - which is, as usual, not the format I watched it in - in which case it appears Tsui's approach to making a 3D kungfu film is to lose all the stunning athleticism and intricate choreography of martial arts. Or you could point the blame at the cast, of whom only Jet Li - and maybe some of the minor baddies - have any kungfu background.

But then again, neither did folks like Maggie Cheung, Brigitte Lin, Anita Mui and Leslie Cheung, all of whom looked fine playing various wuxia badasses in their heyday. It's just as likely that the current crop of pan-Chinese stars simply lack the magnetic screen presence of their predecessors, even if Zhou Xun can do fine in roles that don't call for her to kick ass. But that doesn't explain why Jet Li barely seems interested to be in this movie. And it doesn't explain why the characters are so thin, the typical wuxia themes of honour, righteousness and love they play out so half-baked they might as well have not been in there. It may have been because of the dubbing, which makes everyone sound stiff and stilted even though the version I watched was in Mandarin and most of the cast are mainland Chinese.

To be fair, Guey Lun-Mei seems to be having a hell of a time playing Lusty Exotic Warrior Princess. And the other good performance is a dual one from Aloys Chen, who plays both the prissy eunuch villain and the doofus amongst kungfu warriors with no kungfu skills of his own and makes them both instantly distinctive. Around the halfway mark, the various characters coalesce into two opposing factions, and although the good guys don't entirely trust each other, at least it's not as confusing to keep track who's where and wants what. Some of the plotting is quite clever, especially the ingenious scheme to break the everyone-stuck-in-the-inn-and-wanting-to-kill-each-other stalemate. As messy as it is, it's never boring or tiresome.

So yes, it's an improvement over Detective Dee, and I'm hopeful it'll herald even better movies from Tsui. Maybe it's just taking him a while to get back into his '90s groove. I think he's still got it; he just needs to get better adjusted to the changes in the Chinese film industry over the past quarter-century. Like CGI. And actors inexperienced at the kind of larger-than-life scenery-chewing roles that his brand of wuxia demands. And his own lack of practice at making that same kind of movie for which he became famous. On behalf of Hong Kong movie fans everywhere, I sure hope he's still got it.

NEXT REVIEW: Relationship Status
Expectations: cautiously optimistic

The deerstalker cap might've helped

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:35:00 +0000

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
My rating:

I had a lot of fun watching 2009's Sherlock Holmes, or so my 4-star rating would indicate. Yet I can barely remember a thing about it now - and I certainly didn't feel much in the way of anticipation about its sequel. I honestly don't know why. (Maybe it's just because writing reviews for this blog has gotten to be a drag lately; I know, I took frickin' forever to finish the Songlap review, I know.) I even had to go read my review of the first film just to remind myself what I thought of it. In any case, despite good box-office returns and generally positive reviews, there's been little buzz about this sequel; it doesn't seem like there's a huge lot of folks chomping at the bit to catch the latest cinematic adventures of the Guy Ritchie-directed, Robert Downey, Jr-acted Sherlock Holmes. I dunno, I may be wrong.

And maybe that lack of anticipation is why this movie failed to wow me as much as the first one did.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is hot on the trail of the "Napoleon of Crime", Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), who has been masterminding a series of terrorist bombings throughout Europe. And Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) is about to marry his beloved Mary (Kelly Reilly) and settle down into quiet domesticity, but of course he can't help but get caught up in Holmes' game of globe-trotting cat-and-mouse with the criminal mastermind. This time, they are aided by Holmes' brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry), who is just as brilliant and even more eccentric, and by the gypsy fortuneteller Madame Simza (Noomi Rapace), whose brother may be involved in Moriarty's plot; however, their nemesis has on his side Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson), an expert marksman and assassin. Their quest to stop his plot - to start a world war among the great powers of Europe - will take them from England to Germany, France, and lastly Sweden. Specifically, Reichenbach Falls.

Normally, I'd be the last person to complain about a clever, fast-moving plot that demands its audience be quick enough to catch up with it. But for much of its running time, I couldn't help thinking it was moving too fast and being too clever. Its breakneck pace is hard to keep up with, especially when it comes to its occasional non-linearity; e.g. Holmes has a brilliant plan that he had put together a few scenes ago, which we see as a flashback, and that is now coming together. Honestly, I can appreciate clever storytelling, and I can appreciate a blockbuster action hero who's definitive trait is his ingenuity, and not just his ass-kickingness. And of course, this Holmes has plenty of ass-kickingness; like the first movie, it shows Holmes visualising his moves before the fight even begins, then executing them like a 19th century Jason Bourne, and it's still pretty cool.

It's just... let me put it this way. It's the Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest of the Sherlock Holmes series. It's more of the same, only more - more action, more explosions, more comedy, more buddy-banter between Watson and Holmes, and some things get lost in the tradeoff. One of them being that delicate thing known as tone. Guy Ritchie is clearly deliberately eschewing the stodgy Victorian manner of previous Sherlock Holmes adaptations and going for a more modern, down-to-earth feel. Which can be fun at parts, like how Sherlock and Mycroft call each other "Sherly" and "Myccie" - and also feel incongruously un-Sherlock-Holmes-like at parts, like Holmes and Watson coming to comical buddy-action blows (more so than the one punch Watson gave Holmes in the first) over a humourous misunderstanding. It's not so much Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson as it is Will Smith and Martin Lawrence.

It somehow feels a little too flippant in the beginning, and Holmes' eccentricities played too much for laughs and making him too much of a comical figure. And yet there are scenes that seem to aim for pathos, involving the (seeming!) death of a carryover character from the first movie. These, and the few other more serious scenes, just don't work; Ritchie seems like he'd rather rush through them to get to the next action sequence or quip-laden dialogue scene. (Or he'll intercut it with an action sequence, e.g. what should be a pretty harrowing bit where Moriarty tortures a captured Holmes.) The Madame Simza character is supposed to have a dramatic subplot, but the movie gives her little to do and then pretty much forgets she was there towards the end.

Yet I can't deny that for sheer, popcorn-munching, blockbuster thrills, it delivers. Jude Law and Downey, Jr. still have crack chemistry, and the latter is as much fun to watch here as he was in the Iron Man movies. There's a chase scene through a forest in which our heroes run through a storm of bullets and bombshells that dips in and out of slow-motion, and while that's become a much-overused technique, Ritchie still makes it cool and terrifically thrilling. The quips and gags are funny, and a smart action movie is still a rare enough pleasure to be pleasurable. And it builds nicely to an effective climax, in which Holmes and Moriarty face off in a battle of wits and only wits - no guns, cannons or henchmen around. It would probably be more fun on a rewatch, when you can pore over all the little things that you had trouble keeping up with. I considered giving it 4 stars just for that.

But ultimately no, I have to say it falls short of that level. Stephen Fry as Mycroft is wasted; he's supposed to be an even more brilliant mind than Holmes, yet there he is at the big climax and provides no help at all. The aforementioned returning character from the first film is also done a grave injustice (can you say "fridged"?). Jared Harris tries mightily to be the Hannibal Lecter of Victorian England, but the movie's tone doesn't let him. And the plot isn't really as clever as it thinks it is. (If a Criminal Mastermind has a henchman at the scene of a planned assassination to silence the assassin in case said assassination fails - with a Secret Disguised Weapon to boot - why not get the henchman to do the assassinating?) Ultimately, it's a movie with Sherlock Holmes in the title that just doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. The first one still did, even though it put Arthur Conan Doyle's character in a Hollywood blockbuster buddy-action movie. This one took it a little too far.

NEXT REVIEW: Flying Swords of Dragon Gate
Expectations: Tsui Hark, don't let me down again

Kegelapan yang mampu menyinari dunia filem tempatan

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 09 Jan 2012 16:31:00 +0000

Songlap
My rating:

Cuba tengok trailer untuk filem ini. Adakah ia trailer yang hebat atau trailer yang sungguh hebat? Dengan halus ia menyampaikan segala yang perlu kita tahu tentang filem Songlap: watak utama dua adik-beradik, dunia gelap dimana mereka hidup, pekerjaan haram yang mereka lakukan, beza antara perwatakan mereka berdua yang merenggangkan hubungan mereka, dan watak ketiga yang mendatangkan dilema moral yang dihadapi oleh kedua-dua watak utama. Malah kita difahamkan juga, filem ini ada dialog yang bersahaja, adegan aksi yang mencemaskan, babak lucu yang halus, dan semuanya diiringi lagu "Gila Judi" nyanyian M. Daud Kilau yang bernada sinis. Semua ini dalam 1 minit 40 saat. (Gambarnya cantik tajam HD-quality pulak tu.) Tapi setelah menonton filem ini, saya terpaksa mengaku rasa kecewa atas satu perkara.

Mutu gambarnya tak tajam macam dalam trailer. Yang lainnya semuanya hebat dan sungguh hebat.

Ad (Syafie Naswip) dan Am (Shaheizy Sam) adalah dua adik-beradik yang terlibat dalam sindiket penjualan bayi dan perdagangan manusia, yang dikerjakan oleh Abang Mat (Hasnul Rahmat) dan diketuai oleh seorang perempuan yang dikenali sebagai Mama (Eliza Wong). Am puas mencari makan dari kegiatan haram dan berjudi, tapi adiknya Ad mengimpikan kehidupan yang lebih baik. Ad menaruh harapan keatas satu pertandingan tarian B-boy, impian yang dikongsinya dengan rakan karibnya Razak (Izzue Islam) - tetapi selepas Razak meninggal dunia akibat mengambil dadah berlebihan, Ad mula mengunjung seorang pelacur tua (Normah Damanhuri) untuk meluahkan perasaan. Sementara itu, seorang gadis bernama Hawa (Sara Ali) yang sarat mengandung melarikan diri dari rumah, lalu terjebak kedalam sindiket penjualan bayi yang menjaganya sehingga dia beranak. Apabila Ad mendapat tahu Hawa adalah adik Razak, Ad membuat keputusan melarikan Hawa dari cengkaman sindiket itu - keputusan yang mengakibatkan Keong (Berg Lee), enforcer yang ganas, memburu mereka. Disamping itu, Hawa juga diburu oleh bapanya (Omar Abdullah) yang kejam dan pendera.

Dah lama saya menunggu filem sebegini. Hampir kesemua filem tempatan adalah jenis hiburan ringan; ini termasuk filem aksi "serius" macam KL Gangster, filem melodrama tearjerker macam Ombak Rindu, mahupun filem epik sejarah "epik" macam Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa. Semuanya hanya menawarkan kenikmatan satu lapis; bila kita tengok kita rasa terkesan, samada gelak ketawa, gentar atau terharu. Tapi bila dah tamat, kesannya pun tamat. Kita tidak diundang berfikir - dan kalau fikir balik pun, tiada apa-apa makna baru yang dapat dicari. Jujur kata, tak salah ada filem sebegini mahupun menonton filem sebegini. TMBF pun boleh menikmati hiburan ringan jika ia dibuat dengan baik. Tapi kalau nak dunia filem tempatan membangun - dan kalau kita nak jadi penonton filem yang arif dan matang - mesti ada juga filem yang lebih berat. Daging memang sedap, tapi takkan hari-hari makan daging saja sampai sayur-sayuran tak pernah jamah? Tak sihat macam tu. Inilah filem yang ibarat hidangan sayur-sayuran - berkhasiat, baik untuk anda, dan tak kurang sedapnya dari daging.

Jangan salah faham. Ini bukan filem seni yang susah dihayati macam At the End of Daybreak (ataupun macam ... Dalam Botol, filem tempatan yang sama berat dan dalamnya, tetapi lain sekali genrenya). Ini filem drama jenayah yang biasa dilihat dalam arus perdana filem Barat, macam American Gangster atau Carlito's Way, dan sudah tiba masa kita ada filem tempatan sebegini. Penceritaannya halus dan sarat dengan makna, yang tidak susah difahami jika anda menontonnya dengan memasang otak. Babak dimana Abang Mat memarahi seorang kerana menampar muka gadis yang bakal dijualnya - "Bodoh! Muka ko jangan sentuh!" - adalah antara contoh bagaimana filem ini menyirat makna kedalam ceritanya. Jika wajah gadis ini kini menjadi sesuatu yang berharga, nasib apa yang bakal menemuinya kalau bukan pelacuran? Tapi perkataan ini tak pernah disebut sekali pun; cuma ia boleh disingkap oleh penonton yang bijak. Tiada sebarang baris dialog on the nose yang bertujuan semata-mata untuk menjelaskan perkara kepada audiens. Segala-galanya realistik mengikut watak yang dicipta dan dunia yang didiami oleh mereka.

Inilah gaya penceritaan yang harus ada dalam filem yang matang dan canggih. Songlap penuh dengan babak-babak begini - tetapi mari saya huraikan sesuatu yang mungkin tidak begitu jelas. Tahukah apa beza diantara Ad dan Am yang paling pokok? Bukan sekadar seorang baik dan seorang lagi tamakkan duit; itu hanya permukaan. Ad ada kawan karib iaitu Razak; Am tak pernah bermesra dengan sesiapa meskipun adiknya sendiri. Ad mahu berjumpa dengan ibu mereka tetapi Am tidak; kita sedar Am mungkin membenci ibunya kerana pernah didera semasa kecil (dalam sebuah adegan lagi yang menampakkan penceritaan yang halus), tapi tentu Ad pun pernah mengalami penderaan. Rujuk adegan dimana Ad berada di kelab tarian, berlaku perkelahian kecil antara dua penari yang ditenangkan oleh ahli-ahli kelab lain dengan kata "We fam! We fam!" - lalu Ad tersenyum lebar menyaksikan peristiwa ini. Inilah beza diantara kedua-dua adik-beradik ini: Am seorang penyendiri, manakala Ad dahagakan hubungan sesama manusia. Beza inilah yang menggerak segala langkah mereka dalam cerita ini.

Hakikatnya ini sebuah cerita yang gelap. Sindiket penjualan bayi ini melibatkan seorang doktor dan jururawat yang kelihatan segak dan profesional - malah doktor itu pada luarannya baik hati - tetapi kedua-duanya korup sama sekali. Malah Mama, ketua sindiket itu, dimainkan oleh Eliza Wong, pelakon Cina yang berwajah manis dan pernah saya lihat berlakon dalam iklan serbuk pencuci sebagai suri rumah Cina biasa. Namun Mama ni zalim sezalim-zalimnya, menperdagangkan manusia dan mengarahkan pembunuhan kejam sesiapa yang mengingkarinya. Kegelapan filem ini juga sesuatu yang amat berani dan berlainan dari filem-filem Melayu lain; ia berani mengatakan bahawa dunia tidak hitam putih, baik dan jahat tidak mengenal rupa, dan didalam setiap insan ada yang bersih dan yang kotor. Ia faham bahawa takdir seseorang terletak pada jalan yang mereka pilih. Dan ia berani mengatakan bahawa dalam dunia sebenar, tiada sebarang apa happy ending; ini mendatangkan saspens yang cukup berkesan ketika menanti-nanti bagaimana kesudahannya bagi Ad, Am dan Hawa. Boleh saya kata kesudahannya bukan sesuatu yang anda akan jangka.

Adakah ianya sebuah filem yang sempurna? Sudah tentu tidak; penataan bunyi masih ada yang kurang elok, terutama semasa babak pergaduhan. Lakonan dari semua pelakon cukup memuaskan, tetapi pelakon-pelakon utama iaitu Shaheizy Sam, Syafie Naswip dan Sara Ali masih belum sempat menunjukkan persembahan yang benar-benar mencapai tahap keagungan. Dan ia ada satu dua babak ganas yang saya rasa tak cukup ganas; filem jenayah Barat macam Goodfellas dan Scarface tak segan nak tunjuk pertumpahan darah, sebab begitulah realiti dunia jenayah. (Satu lagi ialah poster tu; boleh diperbaiki wei.) Namun saya rasa inilah filem tempatan terbaik yang pernah saya lihat dalam hampir 3 tahun saya mengulas filem tempatan; lebih baik dari mana-mana filem tempatan yang saya beri rating 4 bintang, malah hampir membuat saya memberinya 4-½ bintang. Ia sempurna dari segi segala yang disasarkan oleh pengarah dan penulisnya, Effendee Mazlan dan Fariza Azlina Izahak, berjaya dicapai. Ini sebuah filem yang saya sedia puji kepada sesiapa yang berpendapat semua filem Melayu bangang dan buruk - malah saya berharap saudara Effendee dan saudari Fariza akan menghantarnya ke festival filem luar negara. Ini sebuah filem yang mampu mengharumkan nama negara kita.

NEXT REVIEW: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Expectations: I liked the first, but can hardly remember a thing about it now

Mission accomplished, and then some

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:25:00 +0000

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
My rating:

The Mission: Impossible film franchise is a curious one. Ostensibly based on the '60s TV series but often having little in common with it - since the hallmark of the show was a tightly-coordinated team pulling off an elaborate con, but the movies usually focused on the solo exploits of Ethan Hunt. There's little continuity between each instalment; the only common denominator is Hunt, who fell passionately in love with a girl in the second film that was replaced by another "one true love of his life" in the third. Even the tone of each three is radically different, since they were made by different directors: Brian DePalma (twisty and convoluted), John Woo (lush and operatic) and J.J. Abrams (gritty and intensely personal). I really did want to do Retro Reviews of them prior to reviewing the new one, if not for - again - lack of time.

But I can say that Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is the best of them yet, not to mention the best popcorn movie of the year.

Disavowed IMF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is broken out from a Russian prison by an IMF team comprising Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and Jane Carter (Paula Patton). Their purpose is to have him lead them in a mission to recover Russian nuclear launch codes that were stolen by an assassin named Sabine Moreau (Léa Seydoux) - who murdered Carter's lover and fellow agent - and is working for a shadowy figure code-named Cobalt, a.k.a. Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist). But just as the team is infiltrating the Kremlin in order to retrieve vital information, Hendricks orchestrates a massive bombing of the Kremlin and frames the IMF and the U.S. government for it, putting Russian intelligence agent Sidorov (Vladimir Mashkov) hot on Hunt's tail. The President initiates Ghost Protocol, disavowing the entire IMF and leaving Hunt and his team on their own - although they also pick up a new member in William Brandt (Jeremy Renner), an analyst with a mysterious past. Hendricks means to drive the United States and Russia into global thermonuclear war, and the mission is for Hunt, Dunn, Carter and Brandt to stop him - a mission that will take them from Moscow through Dubai to Mumbai.

Fwoar! That was a perfectly-crafted piece of rollercoaster action cinema. And the man to thank for it is Brad Bird, making his live-action directorial debut; he's more known for being an animation director, having helmed my favourite Pixar film of all time, The Incredibles, as well as Ratatouille and The Iron Giant. (Which is also a brilliant and severely underrated animated film; go watch it now if you haven't.) It turns out Bird's animation sensibilities are perfect for action movies; Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol does everything right that n00bs like Michael Bay and Paul W.S. Anderson get wrong. The highlight of the film is the Dubai sequence, in which Hunt climbs around the outside of the Burj Khalifa; Bird's camera succeeds terrifically at capturing the heart-stopping vertigo of the world's tallest building (something that Brett Ratner failed at). And with nary a pause for breath, he follows that up with a foot-and-car-chase through a sandstorm that's almost as pulse-poundingly thrilling - and the climactic fight scene in Mumbai set in a vertical, multi-platform parking garage that's a masterclass in complex yet coherently-filmed action.

What does Bird do to distinguish this instalment of the M:I franchise from the others? He makes it the most purely fun one yet. It's not an out-and-out action comedy, but there's a light touch throughout the film that meshes remarkably well with the ostensibly serious, world-shaking stakes. Simon Pegg, returning as Benji Dunn from the last film, provides most of the comic relief, but there are flashes of humour from Cruise, Jeremy Renner and the Anil Kapoor cameo - all of which emerge naturally from the characters and never seem contrived or break the overall tone. And early on, there's a deliciously suspenseful sequence in the Kremlin involving an ingenious piece of holographic technology, that perfectly illustrates its blend of laughs and tension. Humour tends to deflate suspense, but Bird balances them perfectly and allows them to complement each other. In fact, the tension never lets up, through a trick the screenplay - by André Nemec and Josh Appelbaum, who both wrote several episodes of Abrams' TV series Alias - employs again and again: at every turn, our heroes' plans keep going wrong.

To be honest, the strings being pulled here are somewhat obvious; at one point, the machine that makes those face masks, for which the series is famous, breaks down for - I swear to God - no reason whatsoever. Leaving our heroes to attempt a con job on the bad guys bare-faced, thus upping the tension of that scene. This is the most contrived example I noticed, but practically every plan of theirs is full of things going wrong and their mission becoming more and more impossible. But hey, remember the title of the movie? Why should you mind an action movie that goes out of its way to be suspenseful? Far better than an action movie that pulls strings to get its heroes out of tight spots, via deus ex machina contrivances that leave audiences feeling cheated; Nemec and Appelbaum (with contributions from Bird, surely) employ diabolus ex machinas that force Hunt and his team to work even harder and rely even more on improvisation, ingenuity, teamwork and sheer dogged determination. And why should you mind an action movie that gives its protagonists such qualities?

What I expect Bird also brought to Nemec's and Appelbaum's screenplay is a polish on all the characters. There's no such thing as superfluous characters in animation (which is ironic, considering how much more alive and interesting an animated character can be than a flesh-and-blood one), and there are none here; everyone contributes to the film, whether via the main plot or a subplot of their own or even just to provide a funny moment or two. Even Sidorov, the Russian cop who's the Wile E. Coyote to Ethan Hunt's Roadrunner and has barely 10 minutes of total screentime, gets fleshed out well enough for us to appreciate his presence. Don't get me wrong - this is an action movie, not an in-depth character study like, oh, say, The Hurt Locker. William Brandt is clearly not as complex and multi-dimensional as Will James, even if both characters were played by the same actor. But the little amounts of personality that this film gives to all its characters is not only welcome, it's also what very few action movies do well or even bother to do.

There's already been talk of a fifth Mission: Impossible movie, owing to the stellar reviews and strong early box-office for this one - which, I have to say, does not exactly make me eagerly anticipate the next one. Such is the nature of this franchise; each entry has been so different from each other, with so little in the way of continuity, that there's little reason to expect the next one will be as good as this one. (Oh, and speaking of continuity, there is a nod to the last film in here, and it's a welcome and good-natured one considering Mission: Impossible III ended on an unequivocally happy note for Hunt.) Unless, of course, it's directed by Brad Bird, who is the only real winner here. The latest news indicates his next project will be another animated film, but there's no doubt he'll be inundated with offers to direct more live-action movies and that he'll have his pick of the lot. I'm hoping he'll take one of them, and use the new-found Hollywood cachet that's clearly coming his way to give us another dazzling film - action or otherwise. I'll be first in line for his next, whatever it may be and whatever medium it's in. There's no way I won't, after he made the best action movie of the year and earned a definite spot in my list of best movies of the year.

NEXT REVIEW: Songlap
Expectations: oh boy, this looks good

The Muppets are as sweet and earnest - and magical - as ever

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Fri, 23 Dec 2011 06:30:00 +0000

The Muppets
My rating:

It was either this or Arthur Christmas for my next review. I'm missing out on a lot of big movies in an (increasingly desperate) attempt to catch up on current cinema releases; although the Aardman Studios animated film has been garnering great reviews, I ultimately chose The Muppets due to its greater, um, shall we say, "cultural significance." (Even though its cultural significance here in Malaysia is somewhat suspect.) Boy, I'm glad I did! I'd forgotten that the new Toy Story short from Pixar, Small Fry, is attached to it, and I would've hated myself for missing it. Although it feels like a massively shortened version of the first movie (Buzz gets left behind again), the hilarious spoofs of cheesy fast-food kid's meal toys make up for it. And of course, it's a pleasure just to see Woody and Buzz and the rest of the gang on the big screen again.

And The Muppets? Glad I caught it too.

Gary (Jason Segel) and Walter (voice of Peter Linz) are adopted brothers and lifelong fans of the Muppets - especially Walter, who is clearly a Muppet himself but apparently no one ever comments on this fact. On the 10th anniversary of Gary's and his girlfriend Mary's (Amy Adams) relationship, they go on a trip to Los Angeles and bring Walter with them, who is especially excited to visit the famed Muppet Studios. But upon arrival, they find it run down and the Muppets disbanded, having lost their popularity. Worse, an evil oil baron named Tex Richman (Chris Cooper) is planning to buy the property, tear it down and drill for oil. Thus, Gary, Walter and a slightly reluctant Mary must gather the old Muppet gang - Kermit the Frog, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo, Animal, Miss Piggy, Swedish Chef, Rowlf, Camilla the Chicken and all the others - and save the day the only way they know how: by putting on a show. But first, they must convince hard-nosed TV executive Veronica (Rashida Jones) to give them a slot, then get Jack Black (Jack Black) to be their celebrity host - and finally, defeat the machinations of Richman, who mean to ruin them at any cost.

Did The Muppet Show ever air in Malaysia? TMBF was a bona fide TV addict throughout the '80s, and I don't recall ever seeing it. (And I recall Fraggle Rock.) There's a great deal of love and nostalgia for the Muppets amongst the pop-culture-geek websites I hang out on, none of which I or anyone I personally know feel; sure, I've heard of Kermit and Miss Piggy through cultural osmosis, but that's about it. So I came to this movie with none of the pop-cultural baggage that it seems to be deliberately addressing - such as the basic storyline about how they've fallen in popularity and need to convince the world, both in the film and in real life, that they're still relevant. I also came to this movie with a somewhat removed impression of the Muppets' appeal, i.e. I know people like them because they're charming and funny and cute, but I haven't really experienced it myself. Now that I have, I can sum it up in one word: sweetness.

Which is a difficult thing to aim for, since it can so very easily end up as cloying sentimentality. It's also very easy for most people to adopt a cynical, cooler-than-thou hipness that looks down on something as unfalteringly clean and cheery as the Muppets. But I see now that what makes them so beloved - and what this movie succeeds at capturing - is their ability to make sweetness sweet, and not cloying or corny. This is a delightfully candy-coated confection of a film, one that knocks down every wall of cynicism to put a gleeful, child-like smile on your face that you can't wipe off - to paraphrase a lyric from one of its songs. And yes, it has songs; it's a musical, which I've said before is my least favourite genre, but this movie shows that there's nothing like a showstopping, intricately-choreographed song-and-dance number to convey effervescent joy. That's what The Muppets offers - effervescent joy.

How does it accomplish that? First, by being very very cute. In this day and age when there's a multi-billion-dollar corporation that does nothing but create marketable icons of cute, it's enlightening to consider what Jim Henson created 35 years ago through the old-school art of puppeteering. Second, by investing each and every one of those creations with personality - something Sanrio has never bothered to do - via voice acting, puppetry, and plain ol' good storytelling. Third, by adopting an ironic sense of humour that pokes fun at itself more than anything, which therefore gives it license to also poke fun at everything. The funniest jokes in this movie come from its gleefully fourth-wall-breaking moments - like when an entire chorus line collapses in exhaustion after the principal characters leave the scene, or even offhand bits like when Kermit first balks at Walter's plea to reunite the Muppets and Mary says, "This is going to be a very short movie."

But where it resolutely refuses to descend into irony is in the emotional subplots - Gary's and Mary's relationship issues, Walter's identity crisis, even Kermit's and Miss Piggy's on-again off-again romance. Which tend to bog the movie down in its midsection; none of them have any real dramatic weight for the amount of screentime they take up. Albeit the Kermit-Miss Piggy one works better, since the Muppets' brand of earnest sentiment works better when it's played by Muppets instead of flesh-and-blood actors. Because if there's another word that best describes the Muppets, it's earnestness. It's there not only in the sentimental scenes, but also in its entire approach to entertainment at its cheesiest. It's what accounts for Camilla and gang clucking their way through an all-chicken rendition of Cee Lo Green's Forget You (the clean version of the song, of course), as well as the bit where Chris Cooper starts rapping. The former is fun - the latter is a little cringe-inducing. Just as well that neither goes on for too long.

But I feel guilty just for saying the slightest uncomplimentary thing about it. A Muppet movie isn't supposed to be dramatically weighty, after all. It's not a great film, as my rating indicates, and I wouldn't even place it among the year's best. It's just a highly entertaining little movie that kids will enjoy, that'll turn hardened adults into kids again, and that'll leave a smile on your face that'll last a lot longer than most empty-headed kids' movies. (Despicable Me, I'm still looking at you.) Still, I wouldn't put it past some people (Malaysians in particular, if only because we never grew up watching The Muppet Show) to be immune to the Muppets' charms - to think of a movie starring old-school, non-CGI-animated puppets to be uncool. Just look at Walter, the one new Muppet character created for this movie, and see how the same piece of inanimate felt can convey heartbreaking sadness, overwhelming joy, and the entire gamut of emotions in between. There's a magic in that - magic that Jim Henson discovered and that his successors carry on. For those on whom that magic doesn't work, you clearly live in a colder and bleaker world than the rest of us.

NEXT REVIEW: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol
Expectations: wow, AV Club, really?

"Kisah cinta agung" kepala hotak engkau

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:08:00 +0000

Ombak Rindu
My rating:

Sesebuah filem haruslah dinilai atas dasarnya sendiri. Ini sepatutnya menjadi Peraturan #1 buat pengulas filem, tapi bukan semua pengulas yang reti. Ramai reviu yang menunjukkan kedangkalan penulis mengecam filem yang diulas atas sebab ianya bukan filem yang ingin ditontonnya; e.g. dia tak suka filem aksi, jadi dia hentam filem aksi kerana banyak sangat babak aksi. Tetapi juga ada satu lagi Peraturan #1 buat pengulas filem: sesebuah filem haruslah dinilai berdasarkan pendapat sendiri yang jujur. Komen yang paling tak guna dalam ulasan filem ialah yang berbunyi "jika anda peminat filem sebegini, anda akan minat filem ini." Adalah mustahil jika penulis cuba meramal apa yang akan mendapat sambutan dari orang lain, macamlah "orang lain" ini mempunyai citarasa yang sama keseluruhannya. Suka atau tidak, mesti berani mengatakan suka atau tidak. Kedua-dua peraturan ini merupakan Peraturan #1, sebab tiada satu yang lebih penting dari yang satu lagi; dua-dua mesti diimbang dan dicari titik persamaan di antara mereka.

Tetapi adakalanya sukar - terutamanya bila sesebuah filem nyata dibikin dengan elok, tetapi mendatangkan reaksi mual dan marah.

Izzah (Maya Karin) seorang gadis kampung yang bekerja sebagai ustazah, berkawan dengan Mail (Bront Palarae) yang menaruh hati terhadapnya, dan tinggal bersama makciknya (Delimawati) yang sakit tenat dan pakciknya (Kamarool Yusof) yang kejam. Malangnya, Izzah dibawa oleh pakciknya ke kotaraya KL dan dijual kepada bapa ayam, lantas dirogol oleh seorang anak kaya bernama Hariz (Aaron Aziz). Hariz kemudian membeli Izzah dan menyimpannya sebagai perempuan simpanan dan hamba seks, tetapi mula jatuh hati dengannya lalu menikahkannya. Namun begitu, Hariz sudah bertunangkan seorang pelakon filem bernama Mila (Lisa Surihani), dan ibunya Dato' Sufiah (Azizah Mahzan) juga menggesanya supaya mengahwini Mila. Walaupun Izzah dilayan baik oleh Pak Dollah (Zaidi Omar) dan Mak Jah (Normah Damanhuri), pekerja keluarga Hariz, namun dia terpaksa menghadapi pelbagai rintangan dan kesengsaraan demi cintanya terhadap si perogol Hariz tu.

Masyallah. Inikah "kisah cinta agung" yang berjaya meraut lebih RM12 juta di box-office? Kisah cinta antara wanita yang lemah dan tidak berpewatakan dengan lelaki yang menderanya secara fizikal, emosional dan seksual? Filem ini menjual female submission fantasy, atau fantasi pengakuran wanita, kepada masyarakat dimana hampir 40% wanita menghadapi keganasan rumahtangga. Dan apakah mesej disebalik fantasi ini? Jika anda didera, diseksa dan dicabul kehormatan anda, baik diam saja? Hanya kerana laki kau hensem macam Aaron Aziz? Kau ingat makin kau biar diri kau didera, makin pendera kau akan jatuh cinta dengan kau? Kalau kau lawa macam Maya Karin mungkinlah, tapi kalau tak, mampuslah kau? Pasal filem ni, rosak segala usaha NGO seperti Pertubuhan Pertolongan Wanita (WAO) dan All Women's Action Society (AWAM) yang bertungkus lumus membantu dan memberi kaunseling kepada wanita mangsa penderaan suami.

Dan si Izzah ni abende? Heroine paling tak guna dalam sejarah perfileman Malaysia. Langsung tidak mengambil apa-apa tindakan aktif mahupun membuat apa-apa keputusan, hanya bereaksi kepada segala yang berlaku dalam cerita ini (dan reaksinya 90% ialah nangis). Tiada personaliti, tiada harga diri, tiada usaha untuk memperbaiki hidupnya dan tiada tanggungjawab keatas kebahagiaan dirinya sendiri. Biar orang lain jaga dia je, dan kalau orang tu kejam terhadap dia, harapkan tangisan je akan buat orang tu kasihankan dia. Macam ni nak jadi heroine? Siapa nak jatuh cinta dengan perempuan macam ni? Hanya lelaki yang egotis dan dominan macam Hariz, yang inginkan hamba bukan isteri. Lelaki yang benar-benar menghormati kaum wanita dan menganggap wanita sebagai sama taraf akan memilih perempuan yang bijak, berkemampuan dan berpendirian. Yang macam Izzah ni, memang tak layak nak hidup bahagia dalam dunia ini.

Sigh... sekali lagi sebuah filem yang buat aku berang masa mula-mula, makin lama makin buat aku hilang rasa marah itu. Sebab fantasi yang dihidangkan oleh arahan Osman Ali, serta skrip yang ditulisnya bersama Armantono (diadaptasikan dari novel Fauziah Ashari), dimasak dengan cukup sedap. Ini sebuah melodrama yang tak tahu malu ingin memeras airmata dari penonton, dan saya rasa ia digarap dengan baik. Sinematografinya efektif dalam menangkap alam sekitar pantai, sawah padi dan ladang teh yang indah dan romantis. Plotnya tak cincai dan bangang macam Lagenda Budak Setan (yang juga diskripkan oleh Armantono dan diarah oleh Sharad Sharan yang kini menjadi penerbit Ombak Rindu). Paling nyata ialah perubahan watak Hariz dari pendera yang keji kepada hero romantik penuh berperasaan yang mampu menggoyangkan lutut penonton wanita, dilakonkan dengan mantap oleh Aaron Aziz. Rupanya yang kendu gilababi sudah tentu membantu, tetapi beliau juga ada kemahiran disebalik kehensemannya. (Tak seperti Farid Kamil.)

Cerita melodrama mesti ada watak jahat, dan filem ini ada dua. Yang paling menyerlah ialah ibu Hariz yang dipersembahkan dengan penuh over-the-top oleh Azizah Mahzan. Seringkali saya dapati Osman sangat teruja menunjukkan betapa eeeevilnya watak Dato' Sufiah ini, sehingga mekap dan pencahayaan pun berganding dengan lakonan Azizah bagi menjayakan kejahatan yang amat menghiburkan. Watak jahat kedua ialah Mila tunang Hariz yang saya tak sangka sebenarnya bukan jahat sangat. Lakonan Lisa Surihani menggambarkan seorang gadis yang dimanja teruk, sehingga bila Hariz ingin putuskan tunangan, dia buat perangai macam budak kecil yang tak dapat mainan yang dia mahu. (Ramai yang kata lakonannya terlalu over, tapi saya rasa inilah sebenarnya watak yang paling sesuai dengan bakat Lisa.) Tetapi kemudian kita lihat Mila ini juga ada dalamnya, ada perasaan yang tidak diduga dan mampu menimbulkan rasa simpati. Malah, saya sanggup kata dialah watak yang pada akhirnya paling mulia dan berani dalam cerita ini.

Heroinenya pula bagaimana? Tetap tak guna. Saya juga kurang terkesan dengan lakonan Maya Karin; beliau seperti tidak tahu apa nak buat dengan watak yang begitu lemah dan pasif. Penonton pula, nak buat apa dengan heroine ini dan cerita ini? Saya berdoa agar mereka takkan jadikannya sebagai pedoman, atau jadikan Izzah sebagai contoh wanita solehah, sebab ya Allah tidak. Hakikatnya filem ini adalah sebuah fantasi yang memaniskan sesuatu yang amat pahit bagi beribu-ribu wanita dalam realiti. Inilah dilema yang TMBF hadapi bagi menulis rebiu ini; dari segi pembikinan ia cukup baik sebagai filem melodrama yang kuat melo-nya, tapi dari segi mesej dan pendirian ia amat durjana dan celaka. Jadi saya beri 2-½ bintang, rating yang berada ditengah-tengah skala ukuran. Saya dengar penerbit filem ini nak hantarnya ke Cannes Film Festival yang akan datang, dan saya tak sabar hendak membaca ulasan media asing yang pasti akan menghentamnya habis-habis. Sebab orang barat jauh lebih peka terhadap isu jantina dan feminisme dari orang Malaysia, yang jahil menganggap cerita ini sebuah "kisah cinta agung."

NEXT REVIEW: The Muppets
Expectations: do they have a lot of fans here?

A movie that'll make you proud to be Chinese - and Malaysian

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 18 Dec 2011 12:31:00 +0000

Petaling Street Warriors
My rating:

I respect the hell out of James Lee. Not just because he makes good movies, but also for his unwavering work ethic; his last film came out just five months ago, and his latest one is a period kungfu comedy, which certainly isn't a simple production. The guy just never stops working, even when his films are box-office disappointments - or even when they're banned by our quintessential Censorship Board. But if he's at all discouraged by all this, he shows no sign of it; in fact, he has another film in the works, another martial arts action film called The Collector. But first, Petaling Street Warriors - a local Chinese-language movie that's clearly after the same Malaysian Chinese audience that flocked to Nasi Lemak 2.0 and Great Day.

Which I very much hope it managed to capture, because it thoroughly deserves to.

Shi Duyao (Mark Lee) and Zhung Lichun (Yeo Yann Yann) are a married couple selling Hokkien mee at their stall in Petaling Street, circa 1908. Along with their fellow traders Liu Kun (Namewee) and Weisheng (Sunny Pang), they have occasional run-ins with the local gang bosses (John Cheng and Brandon Yuen) - and Duyao can't help tagging after his good-for-nothing friends Yong Kok (Alvin Wong) and Rajoo (Ramasundran Rengan) - but on the whole, he and Lichun are happy together. But in fact, Duyao is the descendant of the last Chinese emperor of the Ming Dynasty, who fled to Southeast Asia 500 years ago after being overthrown by the Qing - and brought with him the vast treasures of his kingdom. That treasure is now being sought by several parties: a mysterious femme fatale named Xiaoju (Chris Tong), an eunuch of the Qing government (Frederick Lee), and the local British constabulary captain (Nick Dorian). All of whom converge on Petaling Street and Duyao, who - unbeknownst to him all this while - is under the sworn protection of this own wife, Liu Kun and Weisheng.

So this movie has been earning raves from a bunch of Hong Kong filmmaking figures, most of which amounts to saying it's on par with the quality of Hong Kong films. Which struck me as pure PR fluff the first time I heard it, that is until I watched the movie. They're right; Petaling Street Warriors is a period kungfu comedy in the classic Stephen Chow mou lei tao mould, and it's pretty damn good by the standards of that genre. It's funny as hell, and maintains a dizzying comic momentum in which, even when a joke falls flat, there's always another one right on its heels. The cast collectively possess a ramshackle charm that will win no acting awards, but are supremely likable and fun to watch. And despite first impressions, the storyline is not dumb or shallow; it shows a sly intelligence in many parts, and cannily presses all the right "Chinese pride" buttons. (As opposed to something like Ip Man 2, which presses all the wrong ones.)

Yeah, you heard me - Petaling Street Warriors is a smart film, something its detractors clearly fail to recognise. The plot tends to ramble off on funny-but-weird tangents - e.g. an interlude involving Duyao, Yong Kok and Rajoo taking lessons from a bogus kungfu master (Chua Bee Seong) - but it wraps up all its plot threads satisfyingly and makes good use of every member of its large cast. A lot of it is reminiscent of Chow Sing Chi's Kung Fu Hustle - the secret kung fu badasses masquerading as ordinary working-class joes, the unlikely doofus who only needs to "unblock his chi" to become an unbeatable kung fu master - but the parts of its plot that are original unfold in clever and surprising ways. And Lee (with his co-director Sampson Yuen) is clearly taking a page out of Namewee's book, with several deliciously satirical in-jokes that poke fun at contemporary issues; I was particularly thrilled by one bit where the British captain arrests Duyao and Liu Kun "for their own protection."

The only parts of this movie that don't quite work are the martial arts action scenes. It boasts Hong Kong stunt director Ma Yuk-sing on kungfu choreography, but the fight scenes are filmed in that typical blend of tight close-ups and quick-cutting designed to hide its performers' lack of skill. Which, frankly, I'm willing to forgive. Mark Lee, Namewee, Yeo Yann Yann, Chris Tong et al are clearly not trained martial artists and aren't at all convincing as such, but neither do they embarrasss themselves and the movie they're in either. (For an example of the latter, see Misteri Jalan Lama.) But aside from that, its production values are solid, with Ipoh subbing in for turn-of-the-century Petaling Street; the period details aren't as flawlessly recreated as the average modern Hong Kong-China production, but it doesn't break suspension of disbelief either. (Except when it wants to get anachronistic, that is.)

Above all, it's funny. It ends on outtakes over the end credits, and it's exactly the kind of movie that ought to - one that's so charming and enjoyable you just want to spend every last second in its company. And a movie that achieves this effect usually has its cast to thank for it, but as I mentioned, their performances aren't exactly masterpieces of comic acting. Yeo Yann Yann seems to be playing a little above the film's broad comedic tone; conversely, Mark Lee mugs a little too much, when his role sometimes calls for more subtlety. Chris Tong is eye candy and little more; Alvin Wong and Ramasundram are bumbling sidekicks and little more; Namewee has nothing to work with other than a (albeit hilarious) speech impediment; Nick Dorian can get a little annoying. But other than Lee and Yeo, none of these characters take up enough screentime to overpower the film. There's always a new scene, a new gag, a new comic setpiece to divert your attention. There are bits with Ho Yuhang and Chew Kin Wah as wannabe gangsters, Henry Thia as a loan shark, and a cross-dressing Jack Neo. And there's even a talking parrot.

And as silly and irreverent as it all is, it never forgets the heart of its story and where to place it. Duyao and Li Chun's love for each other, Duyao coming to terms with his secret heritage, the struggles of the Chinese immigrant community in British-controlled Malaya - they all get enough prominence to end the movie on a greater high than if it were just a load of dumb fun. And yes, there's Chinese pride all over it - a pride in its ancient history, yet also a resolve to seek a new future free of the dictates of that history. After all, this is a film that posits that the last scion of the Ming imperial family is right here in Kuala Lumpur - a good, humble man, who loves his wife, earns an honest living and is grateful for the opportunity. Maybe his grandchildren and great-grandchildren are still with us today. And maybe they're still making a mean plate of Hokkien mee.

NEXT REVIEW: Ombak Rindu
Expectations: so, citer nie pasal gadis kena rogol, pastu kawin perogol dia, pastu happily ever after?

This movie is broken

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:23:00 +0000

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 1
My rating:

I gotta say, lately I've been feeling inclined to defend the Twilight movies. Partly because hating on Stephenie Meyer's teen supernatural soap opera is getting old, even if I don't disagree with any of the harshest criticisms against it (e.g. unhealthy central relationship, blatantly self-indulgent storyline, anti-feminist and chauvinist values, really bad writing). But mostly because it's the movies we're talking about here, which are made by wholly different people besides Meyer - and much more talented people to boot. I think these people have been trying their damnedest to actually make good movies out of these books, and I think they've succeeded to certain degrees. I ain't budging from my opinion that the third one, Eclipse, is a decent fantasy action-thriller. So it was out of a sense of obligation that I decided to watch and review the latest one - more out of obligation than real anticipation, since my enjoyment of the third one didn't really make up for the previous two.

None of that prepared me for how utterly the movie has been ruined by our ever-wise Lembaga Penapisan Filem.

Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) has finally agreed to marry Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson), and Edward has finally agreed to turn Bella into a vampire. But first, their first year of marriage will be Bella's last as a human - and when Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner) learns that they plan to consummate their marriage, he becomes angry, fearing for Bella's safety. The newlyweds have their honeymoon on a private island off the coast of Rio de Janeiro, and their first night is... eventful... but Bella seems otherwise unharmed. Then the unthinkable happens - Bella gets pregnant, an unprecedented occurrence in vampire history. They return to Forks, seeking the care of Carlisle (Peter Facinelli) and the rest of the Cullen clan, but Bella's human body is unable to cope with the baby's accelerated growth rate and superhuman strength - and despite everyone's fears for her life, Bella insists on having the child. Meanwhile, Sam Uley (Chaske Spencer), the leader of the Quileute pack, has deemed the child an "abomination" and a violation of the werewolf-vampire treaty, and prepares to make war on the Cullens - which drives Jacob to leave the pack and reluctantly join the vampires in order to save Bella's life.

Gaahh. IMDB records this movie's running time at 117 minutes, which means almost 20 minutes have been snipped out. This includes the sex scene, which isn't too big a deal; being a PG-13 movie, it's pretty much meant to fade to black then cut back in the morning after anyway. But the cruelest cut is during the birth scene, almost all of which is gone - Bella goes into labour, and then almost immediately we see the newborn baby bouncing on someone's knee. This is the climax of the entire movie! And this means there is absolutely no reason to watch this in Malaysian cinemas; the only option is to download a pirated torrent or get a bootleg DVD. What especially annoys me is that that birth scene was the only thing I was looking forward to in this film, due to how over-the-top gory and sadistic I'd heard it was in the book. I wanted to see how director Bill Condon and long-time series screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg handled it. But I didn't. Gaaaaahhh.

Which means it's gonna be hard for me to review this film - or rather, hard to give an accurate rating. There's still a lot to talk about though. It's about middle-of-the-road as far as Twilight movies go; better than the first and second, but not as good as the third. Better in that a Bella and Edward who have actually decided to get married is better than a Bella and Edward angsting over each other (and Jacob). Not as good in the sense that the plot is somewhat rambling and doesn't build up much in the way of narrative tension. Most of the first half is taken up by the wedding and the honeymoon, which is basically romance porn for chicks (and catnip for Twilight fangirls of the Team Edward persuasion); basically nothing noteworthy happens other than a brief altercation with a suddenly-jealous-all-over-again Jacob, and Bella's attempts to seduce Edward after their first night. The latter of which is more fun, for the couple of brief scenes of Kristen Stewart in skimpy nighties. But on the whole, it's pretty dull, mostly because Stewart and Robert Pattinson still can't muster up any real romantic chemistry. I don't hate them, I think they're both talented performers, but even after four movies, they just can't make these characters work.

And in the second half, the focus suddenly switches from Bella to Jacob. Which is accurate to the novel's structure, but in a movie it just feels weird, like the main character has suddenly gotten sidelined. Also, Taylor Lautner is by far the worst of the three principal actors here - Stewart and Pattinson can at least say they've been good in other movies - and putting him front and center makes for no compelling viewing at all. And here is where the plot finally gets started, which is also problematic; early on, the big bad werewolf leader Sam Uley is all "no, Jacob, don't get your panties in a twist, the vamps are our friends." Then later, he's the one who's all, "OMG vampire baby treaty broken abomination kill kill kiiiiilll!" (And he's in CGI werewolf form when he makes this declaration; if we'd seen an actual human actor say it, we might be a little more convinced.) When the major threat in your plot comes from a bunch of folks we'd spent three previous movies establishing that they're badass-but-basically-nice, the outcome ain't gonna be particularly suspenseful.

See, one of the biggest criticisms against the entire Twilight franchise is how it neuters the concept of vampires and werewolves - more the former, since it ain't werewolves that sparkle in sunlight. Which is why the most successful Twilight movie is the one that reminds us that, hey, did you know that vampires and werewolves are inhuman creatures who eat people? I don't even think it's all that bad a thing to combine that with a teen romance, as long as that sense of menace and danger and, yes, horror, is preserved. Keep that, and even the mushy, angsty, juvenile romance elements can be palatable. And so can most of the other things the franchise has been accused of, which I don't think can fairly be laid on the movies. Such as...

...y'know what, I can't. I actually want to mount a defense of the Twilight movies, and I know what I want to say about it, but I gotta wonder, what's the point? What's the point in doing it in a review of this movie, which in the form I watched is completely defective? I'm serious - this is the worst censorship of a cinema release in Malaysia I have ever seen, worse than even the last time our treasured Censorship Board severely pissed me off. I was actually ready to give Breaking Dawn part 1 a 3-star rating, until it got to the omitted birth scene and I had to stifle the "What??!" that almost burst out of my mouth. So, faced with the choice of rating it on the movie it's supposed to be versus the movie I actually watched, I'm forced to go with the latter. When Breaking Dawn part 2 gets here, I'll be ready to expound on how Condon and Rosenberg made Meyer's story agreeable, if perhaps still not quite good enough to recommend, and mollified most of what people object to about Twilight - which is exactly what, as professional filmmakers, they're meant to do. And as all the teenage (married!) sex and body horror is over and done with, there shouldn't be as much censorship. There better not be.

NEXT REVIEW: Petaling Street Warriors
Expectations: yay James Lee and Namewee!

This is what Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa wishes it could've been

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 03:58:00 +0000

Misteri Jalan Lama
My rating:

The first Afdlin Shauki movie I saw was Setem, and it was also the first local Malay movie I thoroughly enjoyed. Thing is, he starred in it but didn't direct it. Before I started this blog, he had already made films like Buli, Cuci and Sumolah!; popular and successful comedies that were well-regarded for being genuinely funny and non-stupid, unlike most Malay comedies. I haven't seen them. And the one Afdlin-directed film I have watched was Papadom, which I thought was a good effort but not much more. So I guess I've missed the Afdlin Shauki train, particularly so now that he seems to be taking a break from crowd-pleasing comedies and has gone on to something completely different: a fantasy film. Pretty radical departure for a guy most well known for being a comedian and a comedy director.

And it paid off. Few others may agree, but TMBF says it paid off.

Indra (Hans Isaac) and Ilya (Que Haidar) are two estranged brothers. The elder Indra is a ne'er-do-well who owes a large sum of money to gang boss Botak (Nam Ron), and Ilya is an socially-awkward obsessive-compulsive who works for their father Iskandar (Ahmad Tamimi Siregar) - and neither Ilya nor Iskandar has heard from Indra in years. The brothers are reunited after their father's untimely death, and Indra is bequeathed a request to bring his younger brother back to their kampung to attend the funeral. Ilya, however, inherits a strange locket that seems to have mystical qualities - and the journey takes the brothers along a lonely rural road that seems to be taking them into a mysterious, otherworldly realm. Eventually, Indra and Ilya will discover the secret of their heritage, which involves the folk of that realm known as the Nyian, and a ghostly figure that haunts Ilya's dreams (Vanidah Imran).

Wow. There is a lot in this film that impressed me. How it fooled you early on into thinking it's a typical Malay horror movie with long-haired female ghosts, then gradually shifted in tone until it ends as an action-adventure. The transition from the mundane world of gangsters and poker games and offices in skyscrapers, to the fantastical dunia halus. The surreal, dreamlike tone, that in one scene descends into the nightmarish - e.g. the exceedingly creepy scene of a bunch of faceless pakcik orang kampung watching a gory horror movie at a warung and giggling at it all the way. And finally an original, and pretty damn effective, musical score. All things that I could've sworn no local film or filmmaker was capable of pulling off. Add to that solid central performances by Hans Isaac and Que Haidar - especially the former, as a Humphrey Bogart-esque charming rogue whose hard exterior masks a wounded heart - and you have a very impressive movie indeed.

But what really impressed me was the screenplay, credited to Afdlin and Christina Orow. How it never lost sight of the main characters, namely the two brothers. How it took pains to develop their relationship, filling in their backstory, and ending on a beautifully bittersweet note. Even the world-building - an essential part of any fantasy story - was well thought out, involving a creative interpretation of the bunian myths that is exactly what I was lamenting the lack of two months ago. And its mythology is fleshed out in exactly the right way, via subtle dialogue that rewards attentive viewers. (F'rinstance, the orang halus refer to people from the "real" world as orang kasar, which of course they do.) And the plot is soundly constructed; there is indeed a mystery at the heart of the storyline, and its revelation is in turns unexpected, logical and satisfying. In terms of basic storytelling craft, this is the right stuff, folks. Recognize!

So it's a pity - nay, a crying shame - that such a well-written screenplay is surrounded by so many things that don't work. Its technical quality is suspect; Afdlin was clearly going for a unique colour-treated look for his film, but the picture often looks too dim and washed-out. Dialogue sounds like a mixture of on-location recording and ADR, and unfortunately the quality is bad enough to render certain parts unintelligible. Worst of all is some seriously bad production design seen in the third act, where armour-clad warriors engage in a battle scene with savage Orcish-looking creatures called the Ghaul. I don't mind that they look like refugees from Lord of the Rings, but man, that armour - and a CGI sailing ship that also appears near the end. The armour looks cheap and vaguely Crusades-era European, and the ship looks disconcertingly like a modern yacht. Who designed these things?? Why do they look so Westernised? Why not give them a uniquely Nusantara look, for which you just need to do a little research? I for one would love to see what kind of armour Malay warriors of the 16th-18th century might have worn. Wouldn't you?

The sad fact of the matter is, this is a movie whose ambition far outstripped its ability. The climactic battle scene is poorly-staged, and being a fantasy battle, it has folks flying around on wires that frankly looks laughable. The aforementioned armour is clunky and ill-fitting, and the actor who has to wear the thing and try to portray a war leader (whose identity it would be a spoiler to reveal) can't help but look embarrassed about it all. This film is clearly crying out for a bigger budget that could've gone to more elaborate sets and costumes, more CGI shots, better fight choreography, and armour that doesn't look like a cheap Halloween costume. Not to mention an overall longer production schedule, long enough for Afdlin to fully achieve the creepy, mystical and surreal tone he was trying for in the first half of the film.

In other words, it could've used some of that RM8 million that was spent on Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa. And yes, I stand by what I wrote up there; this is a far better film than that wannabe historical epic. It's better in the ways that really matter: story, plot, characterisation, emotional depth, world-building, creativity, originality, and ambition. And if Afdlin had had even half of the moolah that KRU Studios forked out, he would've made far better use of it. I stand by the 4-star rating I'm giving, but I feel compelled to make a big caveat: you'll need to be in the right mindset to enjoy this. You'll need to be able to ignore dodgy sets, dodgy costumes, dodgy special effects, dodgy fight scenes and dodgy production design. Tall order, I know - but I'm tellinya, under all that is a damn fine movie. A damn fine movie.

NEXT REVIEW: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 1
Expectations: a celebration of the wonders of childbirth heh heh heh

You never forget the first apple of your eye

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 12:59:00 +0000

You Are the Apple of My Eye
My rating:

I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch this, or having watched it, review it. Owing to my slow reviewing rate, I've had to miss out on a lot of movies lately (Immortals, Happy Feet 2, Puss in Boots), and I still have a ways to go before I can catch up to the latest releases. And Chinese-language films are a low priority for me - but three things kept nagging me to watch You Are the Apple of my Eye: LoveHKFilm's review, glowing comments from the Lowyat.net crowd, and the fact that tickets are still selling out almost a month after its release. (Oh, and also because that similarly-named Stevie Wonder song keeps getting stuck in my head.)

I'm glad I did. But while local Chinese teenagers may think this the best movie of the year, my response is a little more muted.

It is 1994, and Ko Ching-Teng (Ko Chen-Tung) is 16 and a senior in high school. All his best friends - Boner (Yen Sheng-Yu), Ah Ho (Hao Shao-Wen), Cock (Ao-Chuan) and Groin (Tsai Chang-Hsien) - have a crush on the class top student Shen Chia-Yi (Michelle Chen), but Ko-Teng has little interest in pursuing girls. Until one day he is caught in an, um, indiscretion, and the principal assigns Chia-Yi to "keep an eye on him". She decides to help him with his studies, and thus begins a friendship amongst her, the boys, and her best friend Hu Chia-Wei (Wan Wan) that lasts through high school, college and adulthood. And through the years, Ko-Teng and Chia-Yi dance around their feelings for each other, that change as they both mature.

I'm not a big anime fan, but one anime series I unreservedly love is Azumanga Daioh. It's about the everyday lives of a group of highschool girls (and lemme tellya, it ain't easy for a grown man to admit to liking a show about that), and aside from being side-splittingly hilarious, it's also a gorgeously nostalgic look at the simple and so much more innocent days of school. I mention this because You Are the Apple of My Eye evokes the same nostalgia, when studying, exam results, classroom pranks, hanging out after school, and teenage crushes were all you had to worry about. It's also frequently very funny, and its humour of a particularly crude nature owing to the fact that these are a bunch of horny teenage boys. The indiscretion Ko-Teng is caught for is a synchronized masturbation act with Boner in the middle of class, which now that I think of it, is a stunt that one or two reprobates from my own school might well have pulled off. (Heh heh, pun totally intended.)

But that's just the first half of the movie. The second follows Ko-Teng after the group splits up to different universities and he and Chia-Yi keep up a long-distance never-quite-romantic relationship, and this part tends to drag. For one thing, it spends more time on Ko-Teng's quirky uni roommates (that aren't as likable as his highschool buddies) than on how the central romance progresses. For another, the progression of the central romance isn't very interesting. It isn't very clear how they both mature and drift apart, and the interlude about Ko-Teng organising an underground fight tournament feels like a totally different movie. Also, it glosses over the other boys' equally heartfelt feelings for Chia-Yi. For all that it's adept at creating individually touching moments - e.g. the phone conversation between Ko-Teng and Chia-Yi on the night of the 921 earthquake, gorgeously lit by moonlight - its insights are really kinda shallow.

Which is a characteristic of how Asian movies and TV dramas handle romance as a whole. I've often mentioned how the biggest difference between Asian and western film is that the former is never afraid to go for shameless melodrama, and I've also mentioned how this works on me just fine - when done well. You Are the Apple of My Eye does it pretty damn good, and it helps a lot that it aims for bittersweetness rather than overblown cornball. But it isn't immune to the weakness of substituting sentimentality for real depth. It also portrays a very Asian approach to love and romance, in which the male is expected to "confess" his feelings for the girl and "pursue" her until she "accepts" him - and let's face it, that's an annoyingly juvenile way to go about it. Part of the reason why the second half drags is that you'd expect Ko-Teng to man up and just tell Chia-Yi how he feels about her, but he still can't bring himself to even admit that spending a day together is a "date".

But hey, I suppose that's how it's really like for lovestruck Taiwanese teenagers. And I suppose that's how it really happened for Giddens, the blogger-turned-novelist-turned-first-time-director who is adapting his own autobiographical novel. Giddens is a pop culture phenomenon in Taiwan - as is Wan Wan, a popular webcomic artist who plays a fictionalised teenage version of herself here - and both may account for the movie's record-breaking box office over there. But he's really quite good for a fledgling director, employing flashy CGI visual gags with panache yet proving equally capable at the quiet emotional moments. And he found the perfect two actors to play both his cinematic self and his teenage first love. The coincidentally-named Ko Chen-Tung has terrific screen presence, and Michelle Chen is luminous in just that exact girl-next-door high-school-first-love kind of way. Boys and girls alike will fall head over heels for one or the other of them in droves.

While the broad strokes of the storyline succeeds at tugging the heartstrings, it's a pity that a movie that spans a 10-year unrequited romance doesn't quite have as mature a viewpoint as you'd expect it to. But I'll be honest here: teenage TMBF was as much a besotted fool over one girl or another as Giddens/Ko-Teng, and You Are the Apple of My Eye did a marvelous job of taking me back to those days. In fact, I considered giving it 4 stars, if only because it gave me that rare feeling of being so charming and enjoyable that I didn't want the movie to end. Which, yes, is rare. (By the way, you might want to watch this on DVD instead of in cinemas. The Censorship Board has been at work here, snipping off some of the more off-colour jokes as well as the bits where Ko-Teng walks around his house stark naked. Fortunately, one hilarious bit involving the English F-word is intact, and is guaranteed to bring the house down.)

NEXT REVIEW: Misteri Jalan Lama
Expectations: yay Afdlin Shauki doing... fantasy?

50% comedy, 50% drama, all good

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sat, 03 Dec 2011 18:27:00 +0000

50/50
My rating:

I once had someone ask me if it's true that you need to have suffered a lot in life to become a good writer. My answer to her was no, but I wasn't at all convincing, mainly because I hadn't given the matter much thought. Now, I can't claim any great authority on the subject - then or now - but I have been thinking quite a bit about what she said; it was obviously not so much a question as it was a (mis)conception. A quote attributed to Flannery O'Connor goes: "If you've survived adolescence, you have enough to write about for the rest of your life." A good writer doesn't need to have suffered any more than the average person, but they do need to be willing to examine that suffering - which is something the average person isn't willing to do. Take, for instance, mortality. Ask someone who's lost a loved one (which, eventually and one way or another, will be all of us) what it felt like, and they'd probably frantically avoid the subject. Everyone has experienced suffering, but most people are so afraid of it that they'd do anything not to even remember the difficult times they've been through.

And that's why great writing, great stories, and great art always comes from those who aren't afraid.

Adam Lerner (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is 27, has a girlfriend in Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard), a best friend in Kyle (Seth Rogen), and an overbearing mother (Anjelica Huston) who is caring for his Alzheimer's-ridden father (Serge Houde). And then one day, he discovers he has cancer - and he has only a 50% chance of survival. He visits a young, inexperienced psychologist named Dr. Katherine McKay (Anna Kendrick), and during his chemotherapy sessions he befriends fellow cancer patients Alan (Philip Baker Hall) and Mitch (Matt Frewer). But he has no idea how to cope with the awful truth of his condition - and neither do some of the people around him.

I gotta say, I was somewhat disappointed with this movie for much of its first half. It was funny, and not stupid-funny but true-to-life-funny; nothing to really dislike, to be honest. It just all felt a little facile. Which is still forgivable, given that the film's stated approach is to deal with a Drama Minggu Ini-ish premise with humour rather than clichéd sentimentality. Slightly less forgivable is its portrayal of Rachael, who (SPOILER ALERT) does not prove up to the challenge of caring for a boyfriend with a life-threatening illness. I wish Will Reiser's screenplay hadn't made her such a two-dimensional bitch; not only callous and insensitive, but also needy and manipulative. Every other character is treated warmly and with generous empathy, except for her. I put up that spoiler alert because it's probably better if you don't already know how her subplot will turn out, but really, she's just pretty dislikable from the beginning.

But it got much better later on. Before, Adam was mostly baffled and nonplussed at living with his cancer, and the various humourous indignities it subjects him to. When he gradually comes to the realization that he might really die, it becomes incredibly poignant. This film is an almost-autobiographical account of Reiser's real-life battle with cancer, which accounts for its raw sincerity and honesty - and he has a great director in Jonathan Levine, who achieves that delicate balance of comedy and drama. The former being superbly effective, and effectively honed, at achieving the emotional depths of the latter; those tears welling in your eyes during the second half wouldn't have been there if you hadn't been laughing during the first. And make no mistake, this movie is a tear-jerker - especially if you've known someone who had cancer. The good news is, those tears are well-earned.

What made the biggest impression on me was Adam's struggles to cope with his illness - which is simply impossible. How do you go on like that? How do you live under the sword of a disease that leaves you with a 50% chance of survival, that threatens to cut your life short at the age of 27? You can't - not without suffering a harrowing emotional ordeal, and at least one nervous breakdown like Adam does, in an amazingly well-acted and well-directed scene. You see, Adam has a largely very good life: beautiful girlfriend, faithful best friend, a job he's passionate about, a loving mother, and the few issues he has (said mother being overly-concerned, being somewhat neurotic) are the mundane quirks of a normal, well-adjusted person. All of which is turned upside down; the more he sinks into depression, the more he lashes out, cruelly, at those closest to him and those who are only trying to help.

Who have no idea how to deal with it either. What this film makes clear is how difficult it is to deal with cancer, both for the sufferer as well those around him. The laddish, party-dude Kyle tries to take Adam's mind off it, only to be accused of being insensitive (which he isn't, as revealed in a beautiful moment). Adam's mother offers him all the care and concern she can give, only for him to see her as a nuisance. Katherine tries to give him professional treatment while maintaining a professional detachment, only for him to deride her efforts. (Rachael simply can't handle it; she keeps up a charade of love and affection only to assuage her own guilt.) And how could you blame Adam for all this, when he is the one facing death? But in the pivotal moment when his survival is about to be decided, he reaches out - he acknowledges each of his loved ones, and he offers a gesture of love to his long-neglected father. It does not make his ordeal any easier; it is simply an act of selfless kindness, an act that he thinks may be the last thing he'll ever do.

With a cast led by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and that includes Anna Kendrick, Anjelica Huston and Philip Baker Hall, it almost goes without saying that the acting is terrific. But two things need to be said: one, Gordon-Levitt really is fantastic, and him being in it is reason enough to watch this movie. Two, Seth Rogen is very good as well, providing most of the laughs but also being much more than just the comic relief. He's Reiser's close friend in real life and really did help him through his cancer, so he's playing himself in more ways than one. And seeing as Reiser survived to write this screenplay, it isn't exactly unpredictable how it ends. But there's a lovely, almost ambiguous note to it (the last line of dialogue is "Now what?") that reflects Reiser's eschewal of the neat, Hollywood-style happy ending. And the entire film reflects his willingness to delve honestly into the most harrowing time of his life, and find both the humour and the pathos in it. No, you don't need to have had cancer to write a story like this - you just need to explore your pain, relive it, drag it out into the light and onto the page or the screen. And that takes courage.

NEXT REVIEW: TBC

Memang dia tomboy, tapi apa salahnya?

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 29 Nov 2011 16:37:00 +0000

Aku Bukan Tomboy
My rating:

Ya betul, TMBF sokong teh ghey. Saya sokong golongan LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual dan transgender), dan saya rasa mereka berhak bersuara dan menegakkan hak mereka. Saya berpendapat jika anda benar-benar bermuhasabah - dan bukan hanya menurut kata orang yang kononnya alim sangat - anda akan sedar bahawa cara hidup ini tidak berdosa dan tidak menyakiti siapa-siapa. Saya rasa jika anda benar-benar matang dan mempunyai belas kasihan, anda perlu mempertahankan golongan yang cara hidupnya berlainan dari anda - bukan hanya perjuangkan kepentingan diri sendiri. Ini pendirian saya, tetapi pasti anda tertanya-tanya: mengapa TMBF tetiba selitkan unsur-unsur politik, sosial dan agama dalam blog rebiu filem?

Sebab pendirian saya ini mempengaruhi pendapat saya tentang filem Aku Bukan Tomboy ini.

Farisha (Scha Al-Yahya) seorang gadis tomboy yang berpewatakan kasar dan agresif, serta berambut pendek yang kiut. Dia bekerja sebagai penghantar pizza dan tinggal bersama ayahnya (Harun Salim Bachik). Kawan karibnya Harry (Shaheizy Sam) yang sudah mengenalnya sejak zaman sekolah, tetapi baru-baru ini saja mula sedar bahawa Farisha sebenarnya perempuan, dan mula jatuh hati dengannya. Seorang lagi yang jatuh cinta dengan Farisha ialah Burn (Syamsul Yusof), seorang eksekutif dari keluarga berada yang lurus bendul sehingga dibuli oleh PAnya Sally (Eira Syazira) yang menganggap dirinya kekasih Burn. Tambahan pula, Farisha sering dijadikan bahan rebutan oleh gadis pengkid lesbian, terutamanya Sam (Salina Saibi) dan Bell (Sheera Iskandar). Burn mesti memberanikan diri, Harry mesti menyuarakan perasaanya terhadap Farisha, dan Farisha mesti memilih jejaka manakah yang akan diberi hatinya.

Sebenarnya banyak persamaan antara filem ini dengan filem Bini-Biniku Gangster. Pertama, dua-dua ada Shaheizy Sam. Kedua, dua-dua tajuknya ada tiga perkataan. Ketiga, dua-dua menyerlahkan bakat dan karisma pelakon wanita utamanya yang amat cemerlang. Scha Al-Yahya berjaya mencipta seorang heroine yang mudah disukai dan sedap ditonton, serta kiut nak mampus. Malah selain komedi, beliau juga berjaya melakonkan babak dramatik dengan berkesan dan menyentuh hati. Memandangkan dua filemnya sebelum ini, jelas beliau amat selesa dengan watak-watak sebegini. Saya takkan memanggilnya watak tomboy sebab "tomboy" itu hanya sebuah label. Saya suka melihat watak perempuan yang berkemampuan seperti lelaki dan diberi peranan utama yang menarik, mencabar dan bertigadimensi. Dengan filem ini, Scha telah membuktikan kebolehannya menerajui sebuah filem, dan saya sedia menanti-nantikan filem berikutnya.

Beliau juga dibantu dengan mantap oleh Shaheizy Sam yang memang berbakat semulajadi dalam bidang komedi, dan Syamsul Yusof yang cukup berani membawa watak yang berlainan sama sekali dari hero macho yang biasa dia lakonkan. Dialog yang diskripkan oleh JV Nadirah dan Rizal Ashreff juga bijak dan lawak, menjadikan interaksi antara Farisah dengan Harry, Farisha dengan bapanya serta Farisha dengan Burn amat menggelikan hati. Saya cukup terkesan dengan bagaimana Harry dan Burn dijadikan seimbang tandingan mereka demi menawan hati Farisha. Bila Farisha bersama Harry, mereka secocok sekali - tapi juga ada adegan romantis antara Farisha dengan Burn yang membina hubungan cinta mereka. Harry kenal rapat dengan Farisha, tetapi harus mengatasi prejudisnya terhadap sifat Farisha yang tomboy; Burn pula sedia menerima Farisha dari saat pertama, tetapi ada masalahnya sendiri yang perlu diselesaikan sebelum dapat menjadi kekasih Farisha.

Malangnya, masalah ini tidak diselesaikan. Sama seperti Bini-Biniku Gangster, cerita yang sedap digagalkan kerana penamatan yang kurang elok. Soalan utama yang dikemukakan oleh cerita ini - iaitu, siapa lelaki yang Farisha akan pilih - langsung tidak terjawab. Filem ini tidak tamat, ia berhenti begitu saja! Malah Farisha mengatakan melalui voiceover bahawa dia "akan jawab nanti" siapa lelaki yang terdekat dihatinya, tetapi jawapannya tak datang-datang. Apakah sepatutnya ada post-credits scene yang tak ditayang oleh panggung dimana saya menontonnya? Atau apakah ini dirancang untuk menjadi umpan sekuel? Bagaimanapun ini amat lemah. (Lagipun jawapannya sudah nyata; lelaki tersayang Farisha adalah bapanya.) Seolah-olah Syamsul sebagai pengarah - atau Yusof Haslam sebagai penjana cerita asal - tidak sedar akan penggerak ceritanya sendiri. Sepanjang filem ini, kerap juga saya rasa ceritanya berlengah-lengah dan tidak menuju ke mana-mana.

Datanglah kini kepada pendekatan filem ini terhadap isu seks dan jantina - yang jelas masih menghakimi dan mencela golongan LGBT. Ia boleh menerima ke-tomboy-an Farisha, tapi watak-watak pengkid lesbian Sam dan Bell dipaparkan sebagai gangster dan bersifat pendera dalam hubungan cinta. Malah ada satu adegan dimana Bell dijadikan bahan ketawa oleh Farisha dan rakan-rakan sekerjanya, hanya kerana lamaran cintanya ditolak. Mengapa? Mengapa gadis lesbian perlu dijadikan watak jahat? Mengapa Farisha tiba-tiba bertukar dari heroine yang mudah disukai kepada seorang buli yang mengaibkan orang lain dengan kejam? Mengapa watak-watak "wanita sejati" seperti Sally dan ibu Burn (lakonan Didie Alias), yang benar-benar berkelakuan keji, tidak "dihukum" sebegini? Saya harapkan mungkin Sam dan Bell boleh menjadi pasangan cinta, ataupun Bell boleh berpasangan dengan kawannya yang juga pengkid (lakonan Zarina Zainoordin), tetapi filem ini langsung tiada belas kasihan terhadap mereka.

Saya rasa ini tidak betul. Saya rasa sifat benci dan bengis ini melemahkan filem ini. Walaupun ia lebih murni dari filem 3, 2, 1 Cinta yang juga bertemakan sifat gadis tomboy tetapi lebih sadis menyiksa watak utamanya, namun Aku Bukan Tomboy sepatutnya lebih sensitif dan progresif. (Ketidaksensitifan juga ada dalam satu adegan dimana Farisha diancam rogol oleh tiga orang mat rempit; wahai Tuan Pengarah Syamsul, rogol itu bukan bahan jenaka.) Jujur kata, saya mendapat tanggapan bahawa skrip asalnya ada babak dimana Sam dan Bell mendapat pengakhiran yang bahagia, tetapi ditolak oleh Pihak-Pihak Tertentu. Apakah besar sangat dosa mereka sebagai pencinta hubungan sejenis? Lebih besar dosanya dari perempuan yang asyik marah-marahkan kekasih lelakinya, memboroskan duitnya, serta memandang hina orang bertaraf rendah? Jangan nak cakap pasal agama dengan saya; dari segi moral, ini saya tak boleh terima.

Komen-komen yang lain: mutu pasca produksinya agak kureng dari segi colour correction, dimana satu adegan boleh ada tiga empat jenis warna pencahayaan. Dan gejala muzik ciplak timbul lagi; jelas kedengaran muzik dari filem Toy Story kena cedok kedalam filem ini. Walau dah biasa amalan ini dalam filem tempatan, tetap saya akan menuding jari dan mengecam pembikin filem yang melakukan kesalahan ini sehingga (insyallah!) mereka tak buat lagi. Namun begitu, saya rasa inilah filem arahan Syamsul yang terbaik pernah saya lihat. Masalah dialog kaku yang menjadi kebiasaan dalam filem-filemnya tidak timbul kali ini, dan garapan komedi dan perwatakannya sedap ditonton. Keinginannya mencuba genre baru juga harus dipuji. Tetapi kelemahannya dari segi penceritaan masih perlu dibaiki - dan sikap homofobiknya sesuatu yang tidak patut dicontohi. Baiklah! TMBF kini sedia menerima cacimakian dan hentaman dari mereka yang anti-gay dan homoseks dan ingin menempatkan golongan ini di neraka. Sila tunjukkan kebencian anda yang suci dan soleh di bebenang komen catatan ini. Bring it on!

NEXT REVIEW: 50/50
Expectations: expecting great things from this one

Yang sesat disini ialah Imran Ismail

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 27 Nov 2011 10:38:00 +0000

Abuya part II
My rating:

Adakah Imran Haji Ismail pembikin filem yang paling misoginis di Malaysia? Kemungkinannya besar. Kedua-dua filem awalnya, Jalang dan 2 Alam menampakkan pandangan yang amat kejam dan bengis terhadap kaum wanita, memang layak kena bantai dalam rebiu saya. Tapi lelaki yang misoginis ni, sebenarnya membenci wanita tetapi juga menafsukan wanita. Jadi tak hairanlah bila saya lihat trailer untuk Abuya, filem terbarunya, yang menunjukkan adegan seksi dengan dua watak perempuan tengah mandi berkemban sambil melakukan teh lezbo. Saya taklah syok sangat dengan adegan ini, sebab saya dah jangka ia takkanlah seksi sesangat - ni kan Malaysia. Yang saya curiga ialah bagaimana Encik Imran nak menghina kaum wanita kali ini.

Hina memang ada. Tapi yang paling melaknatkan filem ini ialah keburukannya yang buruk seburuk-buruknya.

Abu Zakaria atau Abuya (Faizal Hussein) ialah ketua sebuah kultus ajaran sesat yang memujanya sebagai Khalifah. Dia mempunyai empat isteri iaitu Rabiah (Suhaillah Salam) yang setia dan alim, Sonia (Genna Alif) yang dari Turki, Adawiyah (Adrea Abdullah) yang dari Siam dan gedik nak mampus, dan Suraya (Jue Aziz) yang menghidapi penyakit nimfomania. Pengikut-pengikutnya yang setia termasuk Akob (Khir Mohd Noor), Alias (Yank Kassim) dan Husin (Ary Muhammad) yang sebenarnya tak berapa jelas kesetiaannya. Mereka sedang mengumpul senjata dalam persediaan untuk mengisytiharkan perang keatas peminat-peminat filem yang berkualiti.

Saya seronok membaca ulasan filem ini dari blog PerangFilem, Rollo de Pelicula dan Orang Perlis Menulis. Ketiga-tiganya cukup tajam dan tepat tentang segala kegagalan filem ini (cuma saya rasa mereka terlalu lemah lembut dengan Imran Ismail), jadi saya syorkan anda sila klik dan baca. Tapi memandangkan kini giliran saya pula untuk jadi pengulas, kenalah saya pilih sudut pandangan yang lain dari mereka. Disini saya akan cuba rebiu format baru, iaitu menyenaraikan segala dosa yang telah dilakukan oleh Imran Ismail dengan filem ini. Sememangnya filem ini banyak berdosa yang tidak boleh diampunkan.

Dosa Mencuri: Dari saat permulaan lagi filem ini sudah menyerlahkan ketaikannya. Muzik diciplak bulat-bulat dari hasil kerja Dougie Maclean buat filem 1992 The Last of the Mohicans, yang merupakan antara muzik filem yang paling terkenal. Muzik ini asyik berulang pulak tu, membuat saya lebih marah setiap kali. Dahlah tak malu, tapi entahlah apa kaitan cerita tentang pemimpin kultus di Malaysia dengan irama Celtic dari filem tentang perang revolusi Amerika.

Dosa Tidak Amanah: Sebenarnya ini pertama kali Imran menduduki kerusi pengarah; dia cuma penulis skrip bagi Jalang dan 2 Alam. Yang dua-duanya juga filem dimana arahannya tersangat teruk, jadi saya tak tahu samada Imran diberi ajaran sesat dari Nazir Jamaluddin dan Zarith Lokman ataupun dia memang bangang secara semulajadi. Nilai produksinya tahap sampah. Kamera sering keluar fokus, serta runut bunyi yang betul-betul haprak. Serius, ini adalah penataan bunyi yang paling teruk pernah saya dengar dalam sebuah filem tahun ini. Imran selaku pengarah yang meletak "An Imran Haji Ismail Film" besar-besar atas skrin macam filem ni dia sorang je yang cipta, kalau dia bagi lulus tahap kualiti ini, membuktikan dia langsung tak pentingkan kualiti. Kalau filem ini ibarat sebuah bangunan yang direka oleh Imran, pasti tak sampai setahun dah runtuh dan semua penghuninya mati.

Dosa Menghina: Yang dihina sini ialah audiens. Bukan sahaja mutu teknikalnya yang teruk, penceritaannya juga dah rosak sehabis-habisnya. Plotnya tiada logik, tiada punca dan akibat, tiada hubungan antara satu babak dengan babak yang lain. Ada seorang watak polis yang ditangkap oleh puak Abuya dan dibunuh secara rejam - tetapi dalam adegan kemudian, dia hidup kembali! I jenaka you not. Dia kelihatan dalam latar belakang sebuah syot luas sebagai pelakon ekstra. Jelas sekali suntingan filem ini dibuat cincai nak mampus, yang ekor jadi kepala, dan babak yang mungkin dapat menerangkan plotnya dibuang. Apa lagi kalau bukan menghina penonton? Imran ingat anda sanggup membayar RM10-12 ringgit untuk menonton filem yang dibikinnnya macam berak tak cebok, malah menjangka ia dapat memuaskan citarasa anda. Beginilah rendahnya pandangan Imran terhadap anda.

Dosa Menipu: Tahukah anda mana babak yang kena buang? Babak lesbian yang saya sebut diatas. Babak yang ditayang dengan bangganya di trailer serta foto publisiti, sebenarnya tiada dalam filem ini. Apa lagi niat Imran jika bukan hendak menarik penonton dengan babak ini? Tapi jika anda menonton filem ini kerana hendak melihat aksi lesbian antara Jue Aziz dengan Genna Alif, maka anda sudah kena kelentong.

Dosa Syahwat: Tiada adegan lesbian tidak bermaksud tiada adegan seksi. Keseksian dibekalkan oleh Jue Aziz yang cukup berani melakonkan watak isteri Abuya yang ketagihan seks dari suaminya, sehingga dia menggeliat atas katil semasa Abuya sedang berasmara dengan seorang lagi isterinya. Ada juga babak dimana seorang ahli puak perempuan dirogol oleh Yank Kassim dan seterusnya oleh Khir Mohd Noor, serta perempuan murahan yang sekali-sekala dibawa ke markas untuk diraba-raba oleh pengikut Abuya. (Dah saya kata, filem ini tetap ada hina wanita jenama Imran Ismail.) Ini jelas mengeksploitasi wanita bagi tujuan menarik penonton (lelaki) ke panggung. Saya boleh bayangkan air liur meleleh dari mulut Imran ketika penggambaran babak-babak ini - dan kalau babak-babak ini masuk dalam filem sedangkan adegan yang lebih relevan kepada plotnya kena buang, nyatalah apa yang dia pentingkan.

Dosa Munafik: Filem ini bermula dengan ayat Quran, sama seperti Jalang dan 2 Alam. Kononnya berdakwah, nak memberi pengajaran kepada umat Islam supaya memilih jalan yang suci. Ini karut tahap kelakar. Bukan hanya kerana penonjolan seks yang lucah, tetapi juga dalam paparan pemujaan Khalifah Abuya. Banyak adegan memanjang yang menunjukkan pengikut Abuya menjilat lantai ketika datang mengadapnya, serta meminum air yang digunakan untuk mencuci kakinya, dan sekali lagi saya dapat merasa betapa sukanya Imran menggambarkan semua ini. Saya rasa dia sebenarnya beridam nak jadi macam Abuya, dengan empat isteri yang lawa (tiga yang miang, satu yang alim - the best of both worlds!) serta seangkatan pengikut setia yang memujanya bagaikan dewa dan sanggup memukul dan membunuh musuh-musuhnya. Ini bukan cerita amaran - ini fantasi keji seorang yang dangkal dan berminda kecil.

Banyak lagi ketaikan yang belum saya sebut. Arahan Imran yang macam pementasan teater, pelakon sering berdeklamasi menghadap kamera manakala orang yang bercakap dengannya berada di belakang. Dan yang paling fail dan facepalm ialah adegan aksi perang klimaktik, yang terlampau teruk dan lawak bikinannya. (Ini saya boleh puji; filem ini berakhir dengan adegan yang berjaya membuat saya ketawa terbahak-bahak.) Tapi kemudian keluar pula perkataan "Bersambung" atas skrin. Dan memang benar filem ini bertajuk Abuya part II, bagaikan siri filem Star Wars yang bermula dengan Episode IV: A New Hope. Nampaknya Imran mahu menyekuel dan memprekuelkan filem ini - dan ini sesuatu yang tidak boleh dibiarkan berlalu. Saya menggesa semua orang yang beriman dan bermoral supaya membantah pembikinannya. Filem arahan Imran yang seterusnya, Datin Ghairah (haram jadah punya tajuk!) sudah bakal ditayang bulan depan, tetapi Abuya part I, III dan IV masih boleh dicegah. Lakukan apa saja yang perlu. Tubuhkan laman Facebook "Sejuta Rakyat Malaysia Mahu Imran Ismail Berhenti Membikin Filem." Jangan biarkan tragedi ini menimpa dunia perfileman tempatan lagi.

NEXT REVIEW: Aku Bukan Tomboy
Expectations: aku sokong Seksualiti Merdeka, tau...

The exciting adventures of a dull hero

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:09:00 +0000

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
My rating:

Oh yes, I certainly remember Tintin. I remember a good many hours spent plonked down on the floor of an MPH or Times bookstore, reading the comics from cover to cover. Between this and borrowing my friends' issues (I never owned any, but now that I have plenty of disposable income and the freedom to spend it on the trappings of my childhood, I should really consider getting 'em all), I pretty much covered all twenty-three of them (except the unfinished twenty-fourth). They were wonderful comics, a delightful blend of action, adventure, comedy, and a gorgeously romanticized view of the mid-20th century. So now there's a movie, directed by Steven Spielberg, produced by Peter Jackson, and written by Steven Moffat, Edgar Wright and Joe Cornish - all highly prestigious names, not to mention highly reliable at delivering quality filmic entertainment. Naturally, the first question would be: is it a faithful adaptation?

The answer is yes. But fidelity to the source material isn't the biggest issue here.

When world-famous reporter Tintin (Jamie Bell) purchases a beautiful model of a 17th-century sailing ship - the Unicorn - he finds himself caught up in the ancient mystery of the actual Unicorn and its captain, Sir Francis Haddock. A man named Sakharine (Daniel Craig) is willing to commit murder to uncover that mystery, and Tintin's quest to beat him to it will lead him on a continent-spanning adventure - accompanied, as always, by his faithful dog Snowy. Along for the ride is the alcoholic Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), descendant of the Unicorn's original captain and an important key to the mystery; also occasionally turning up to lend a not-very-helpful hand are the dimwitted Scotland Yard detectives Thomson (Nick Frost) and Thompson (Simon Pegg).

Okay, confession time: it's actually been years since I opened the covers of a Tintin comic. I had to check the movie's Wikipedia entry to learn that the storyline is cobbled together from three of the comics: The Crab with the Golden Claws, The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure. Which is a logical choice, seeing as it combines Tintin's and Captain Haddock's first meeting with the adventure in which Haddock's background features most prominently. And in knitting together these three issues into a seamless movie plot, Moffat, Wright and Cornish earn their paychecks. As do the army of CGI animators who created the gorgeously detailed locations, and Spielberg for both the fun action scenes and the wholesome, old-fashioned adventure tonality in which they inhabit. It's a fun movie, more fun than anything Spielberg has made in years - and that includes Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

But it's in pseudo-realistic motion-capture 3D animation. And my dislike for this particular animation style has not abated; in fact, I'm dismayed it picked up another two advocates in Spielberg and Peter Jackson. I've already discussed how it always makes characters look dead-eyed and inexpressive, and that problem is present here - in its titular protagonist, no less. Look at the publicity stills - that dull, slack-jawed look is pretty much permanently affixed to his face. It could be argued that the original comic Tintin is a deliberately blank slate as well, with no distinct personality nor backstory, but Hergé still knew how to draw him with expressions. Hergé's Tintin was never dull, which is what Spielberg's Tintin is. And this isn't an uncanny valley problem, which this movie quite successfully avoids; Haddock and Thomson and Thompson are enjoyably expressive, largely because their features are deliberately cartoonish. This Tintin is dull by design.

This exacerbates another problem when the movie gets to its action scenes. There's a midsection chase scene through a Moroccan city that's superbly well-choreographed, employing a camera that swoops through a single tracking shot in ways that would be impossible in live-action (and must've had Spielberg creaming in his pants). It's thrillingly good fun, and nicely brings Hergé's own wildly slapstick action scenes into the cinematic medium. But there's one part - which can be seen in the trailer - in which Tintin rides a motorcycle off a ledge, it breaks into pieces, leaving him holding the handlebars, which he uses to zipline down a telephone cable in pursuit of a hawk that has stolen the Macguffin. What is he thinking and feeling in this scene? Is he a fearless daredevil who thinks nothing of performing such acrobatic feats? Or is he in absolute terror at the death-brushing predicament he got himself into, as any normal person would be? We don't know. Because we never see his face in this scene.

Compare that to a similarly wild action scene in Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, in which the hero free-runs through the flying debris of a tornado, then gives us a moment to show his emotional reaction at, well, having survived a free-run through a tornado. This is important, guys. Knowing what's going through our hero's mind is crucial in the immersive experience of a film, especially so in an action scene. Because otherwise, it's no more than a shallowly spectacular circus act by performers whom we don't know and have no emotional investment in. What's sad is that Spielberg used to know this. That's how he directed the Indiana Jones movies, with a game collaborator in Harrison Ford; his "oh shit oh shit I don't know if this is gonna work" look, his "aaaa nooo we're gonna diiiiee" look, his "enough enough I give up just kill me please" look, and his "okay that is it I have had it this ends right now" look are exactly what made Indy the greatest action hero of all time. And now, Spielberg gives us an action hero who performs feats Indy could never have dreamed of, yet never looks anything more than mildly flustered.

Comparing it to a more cartoony 3D-animated film also raises another problem with this movie, and with the whole pseudo-realistic style as a whole. Namely, is it realistic or not? Are we meant to be seeing a representation of live-action reality, or the deliberately exaggerated slapstick of a cartoon? Insanely over-the-top action sequences like the Morocco chase are fine if it's the latter, but in the former are just unbelievable and phony. This confusion somewhat marred my enjoyment of this and its other action scenes, as thrilling and as well-staged as they are. Even its non-action scenes; some of its jokes and gags, while taken directly from the comics, come off as cheesy and kiddish. Again, they'd be funny if it were made clear we're watching a cartoon (or at least, one in which the main character looked as much like a cartoon as everyone else in the movie), but therein lies the inherent problem of the pseudo-realistic motion-capture animation genre: it's this nebulous, confusing, neither-one-nor-the-other middle between live-action and animation, between realism and heightened realism.

Yeah, I do this a lot - writing ostensibly favourable reviews that spend more pixels on criticising the movie than praising it. And then I wrap it up with a concluding paragraph that says, okay, seriously you guys, it's still a good movie. It's good old-fashioned all-ages fun, and a fair and loving tribute to Hergé's comic creation. But it could've been a lot more - not just a truly brilliant film adaptation of the unequivocally brilliant comics, but a worthy reprise of Raiders of the Lost Ark, to which Spielberg is clearly paying self-homage. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull sorely disappointed me and made me suspect he's losing his touch, but The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn confirmed it; he's forgotten that one simple thing that made his older movies so genuinely thrilling, instead of superficially so. Oh well. Maybe the sequel - which Peter Jackson is directing - will be better.

NEXT REVIEW: Abuya
Expectations: oooohohoho

Alamak, sia-sia aku puji Ismail Hasim

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 12:50:00 +0000

Alamak... Toyol!
My rating:

Memang TMBF rasa kesal kerana pernah memuji pengarah Ismail "Bob" Hasim. Saya suka kedua-dua filem sebelumnya, Ngangkung dan Bini-Biniku Gangster, terutama kerana kedua-duanya menunjukkan hubungan antara watak-watak, khususnya suami isteri, yang saling menyayangi dan sedap ditonton. Saya sangka inilah tema yang beliau cuba selitkan kedalam semua filem yang dibikinnya. Sehingga saya sanggup menonton filem Alamak... Toyol! ini yang dari poster dan trelernya kelihatan amat teruk. Banyak filem tempatan yang saya tak sempat nak tonton dan rebiu, sebab TMBF kesempitan masa baru-baru ini dan terpaksa catch up dengan filem-filem yang baru ditayangkan. Tapi oleh kerana saya sudah janji hendak menonton filem terbaru arahan Ismail, saya memilih filem ini dengan harapan yang tipis.

Walau betapa tipis pun harapan, hakikatnya teramatlah mengecewakan.

Fakhrul (Angah Raja Lawak) dan Kudin (Along Cham) adalah dua perompak kecil-kecilan. Pak Umar (Hamid Gurkha) pula membela sebuah toyol (Muhammad Afiq Izzuddin), dan dia menjual toyol tersebut kepada Fakhrul dan Kudin. Tetapi toyol itu sebenarnya tak pandai mencuri, maka mereka berdua terpaksa mengajarnya bagaimana hendak berjaya dalam bidang jenayah. Sementara itu, seorang pekerja opis bernama Farah (Adeline Tsen) mendapati majikannya Daniel (Tyzo Tuah) adalah seorang pengedar dadah. Tanpa sebab yang munasabah, Farah berganding dengan si dua hero tu untuk membantu satu sama lain; Fakhrul dan Kudin ingin mencari Pak Umar semula untuk memulangkan toyol itu, dan Farah ingin melarikan diri dari Daniel yang mahu mencari dan membunuhnya.

Tengok poster kat atas tu. Tengok toyol berkulit hijau yang tertera kat atas poster tu. Adakah rekaannya menarik? Adakah ini sesuatu yang anda ingin tonton selama 90 minit? Bagi saya, jawapan kepada kedua-dua soalan ini ialah "oh God no." Sebab itu saya rimas hendak menonton filem ini, kerana pada luaran pun dah nampak macam taik - dan akhirnya, ketaikan filem ini terbukti. Kononnnya nak jadi cerita tentang hubungan antara manusia dengan makhluk bukan manusia yang menyentuh hati, a la E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Lilo & Stitch, CJ7, atau baru-baru ini, Real Steel. Gagal tahap gagal yang tak habis-habis kegagalannya. Tak payah tengok filem ini pun; letak saja gambar budak hijau tu sebaris dengan E.T. dan Stitch dan CJ7 dan Atom. Bandingkan dari segi rupa sahaja. Mana yang boleh kau sayang, dan mana satu kau nak tumbuk?

Tapi bukan ini perkara yang paling busuk dalam filem ini. Bagi anda yang sudah tengok filem ini dan menganggapnya seronok dan kelakar, tahukah anda ia sebuah filem yang merosakkan akhlak? Ya betul! Rohani anda sudah dicemar akibat anda sukakan filem ini. Sebab ia mengangkat dua watak pencuri, perompak, penyangak dan penjahat sebagai hero, dan anda sedia menerimanya. Sebenarnya cerita dimana penjenayah jadi hero memang dah lama ada; baru minggu lepas saya mengulas filem Tower Heist. Tetapi cerita begini seharusnya menggambarkan niat heronya yang mulia untuk melakukan jenayah, serta kebijaksanaannya mengakali lawan. Fakhrul dan Kudin tidak bijak, sebaliknya mereka dungu sedungu-dungunya. Fakhrul dan Kudin tidak mulia, sebaliknya mereka menganiayai orang ramai dan tak pernah menyesal atau menebus kekejaman mereka. Hatta jika anda gemar menonton mereka, bermaksud anda menyanjungi kezaliman dan kejahatan. Ya betul!

Dan jika anda sukakan cerita ini, bermaksud anda sama dungu dengan Fakhrul dan Kudin. Terlalu banyak yang tak logik dan tak masuk akal tahap sakit kepala dalam filem ini, tapi mai saya bagi satu contoh. Ada sebuah adegan dimana Farah melihat bungkusan dadah dalam laci meja majikannya, terserempak dengan Daniel, terus lari melapor kepada polis, yang kemudiannya datang memeriksa laci tersebut. Dadah tu dah takde lagi, dia bingung. Polis pun ingat dia kelentong, minta maaf lagi dengan Daniel. Farah asyik tertanya-tanya, bagaimana dadah itu boleh hilang? Tak pernah terlintas dalam fikirannya yang Daniel boleh sembunyikan dadah itu, sebab dia nampak Farah menyelongkar lacinya. Farah ni bahlol, tapi polis tu sama. Saya ada dengar Kementerian Dalam Negeri kita melarang filem yang memaparkan anggota polis yang jahat dan makan rasuah, atas alasan hendak jaga nama PDRM. Tapi filem macam ni yang menganggap polis bahlol, diorang tak peduli.

Ada lagi! Tahukah anda filem ini ada adegan bogel? Ya betul! Filem yang diberi klasifikasi PG-13 ini, yang membariskan pelakon cilik berusia 12 tahun, ada adegan Adeline Tsen berbogel - walaupun tubuhnya ditutup lapisan blur macam filem lucah AV Jepun yang mem-pixellate-kan bahagian kemaluan. Apekebenda ni?? Apa sebab nak tunjuk pompuan telanjang macam ni?? Berapa banyak kau sogok Lembaga Penapisan Filem supaya lulus filem ni? (Tambahan pula, Cik Tsen sudah gempal dan tak seksi lagi. Dulu saya ingat dia kiut, tapi lepas dia buat filem Klip 3GP dia dah tak kiut lagi bagi saya. Kemaafan dari TMBF bukan mudah diperolehi.) Di samping itu, saya tak tahu siapa yang beriya-iya sangat nak angkat Angah Raja Lawak jadi bintang filem. Dia langsung tiada gaya, karisma mahupun rupa seorang pelakon utama. Siapa peminat dia? Siapa kipas susah mati lelaki yang nak jadi dia dan wanita yang nak mendampingi dia? Apa kejadah taste korang ni?

Apa sudah jadi dengan Ismail Hasim? Apakah saya terburu-buru melambung pujian kepadanya? Apakah beliau hanya pembikin filem tempatan yang bebal macam biasa? Saya tak tahu. Mungkin ini bukan angkara beliau. Mungkin beliau dipaksa mengarah filem ini dengan skrip yang sampah, barisan pelakon yang tak berbakat, dan rekabentuk watak toyol yang WTF. Tetapi beliau tak mungkin nak berdiri depan panggung wayang sambil mengedar risalah bertajuk "Bukan Salah Saya!" Jujur kata, memang saya terlalu cepat memujinya dari hanya dua buah filem. Jadi saya takkan menggesa hendak mengutuk beliau atas filem ketiganya. En. Ismail, anda masih ada peluang lagi dari TMBF. Tapi filem Alamak... Toyol! ni memang taik.

NEXT REVIEW: The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn
Expectations: yay Tintin, boo uncanny valley

The Tower that heisted a Stiller-Murphy comedy

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 16:19:00 +0000

Tower Heist
My rating:

I don't think Brett Ratner is anyone's favourite director. He bore the brunt of fans' ire for X-Men: The Last Stand (which wasn't that bad, just mediocre), and his career high points are the three Rush Hour movies. And yet after directing nine films, he's still known for having no distinctive personal style whatsoever - in fact, what he's known for lately is saying some highly unwise things, the second of which lost him the plum job of producing the next Oscars. (That "rehearsal is for fags" statement annoys me less for its homophobic slur than what it says about his shoddy work ethic.) He's a filmmaker no movie critic worth their cred would stoop to praising, is what I'm saying.

So since I liked Tower Heist, I'm gonna spend the rest of this review doing my best not to praise him.

Josh Kovacs (Ben Stiller) is the manager of the Tower, the swankiest apartment building in Manhattan. Its residents demand only the finest service, and Josh demands the same from his small army of staff. But when its most prominent resident Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda) is arrested by the FBI for securities fraud, Josh is compelled to ask Shaw for his staff's pension fund that Shaw had helped them invest - a fund that has now been completely wiped out. Stung by Shaw's callousness, he recruits a small gang that includes his concierge and brother-in-law Charlie (Casey Affleck), bellhop Dev'reaux (Michael Peña), former resident and now destitute Fitzhugh (Matthew Broderick), maid Odessa (Gabourey Sidibe), doorman Lester (Stephen Henderson) - and finally, childhood friend and petty crook Slide (Eddie Murphy). Their goal is to rob Shaw's penthouse apartment in the Tower for a hidden stash of cash that the FBI has yet to find - as well as diverting the attention of FBI agent Claire Denham (Tea Leoni), whom Josh might also want to date.

It's not hard to avoid praising Ratner when you're reviewing a movie written by Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson. Both have less-than-impressive entries in their resume (last year's Killers and two of Ratner's Rush Hour flicks), but Griffin wrote Ocean's Eleven and Nathanson wrote Catch Me If You Can, and they both bring their respective talents to fore here. This movie pretty much won me over from the opening minutes, with its likable portrayal of the Tower staff led by the consummate professional Josh, who is unfailingly dedicated to his job yet cares deeply for his people. Likewise the rest of the ensemble, each of whom have their own quirks but are all conscientious, efficient, cheerful working-class joes. I don't know what it is about people doing their jobs well that makes it so enjoyable to watch (or what it is about me that I like watching it so much), but this is probably the single best thing about the movie.

But if you're expecting a wacky buddy-comedy featuring the dream pairing of Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy, you might be disappointed. Josh is a strangely un-Stiller-like character, in that he's almost completely uncomedic. And although Stiller isn't bad in it, his vengeful everyman hero could just as easily be played by Russell Crowe or Denzel Washington. Still, Josh is extremely likable, and I liked that early bit of what seemed like clumsy exposition that turned out to be foreshadowing of his hidden reckless side. Murphy, on the other hand, returns to the kind of fast-talking hustler role he hasn't played since his '80s heyday, which is certainly much more welcome than the last few movies he's made. But although he's funny when he appears, he's not in it much. The movie spends more time on its heist plot, its ensemble dynamics and its social injustice theme than the Stiller-Murphy pairing. Slide barely even figures into the story's denouement.

And that heist plot isn't the greatest. It skips over the planning stage, which is one of the chief pleasures of the heist movie, leaving a number of holes in the story's logic. (Was Lester the doorman even part of their gang? He never was, and then suddenly he is.) It sometimes gets both lazy at explaining things - which could be chalked up to scenes left on the cutting room floor - and carried away with the plot complications, especially when two members of the crew suddenly decide to defect and/or sell out the others. And it probably won't spoil things too much if I reveal that their plan to steal money turns into a plan to steal a car, from a high-rise penthouse no less. Which is fun, but lacks the high-energy pacing, direction and clever plotting that could've made it really fun. And yes, it probably is too much to expect that no one on the street would notice a car dangling out a high-rise window, even if there is a parade going on.

Whether they rehearsed or not, the rest of the cast are all good. I liked Casey Affleck's Charlie, who seems a little dim but is still dedicated to his job; I guess the ensemble already has a dimbulb in Michael Peña's Dev'reaux. Fitzhugh, the Wall Street banker who lost his job, seems to be another of the film's nods to the economic realities of the day. I'm glad Gabourey Sidibe, formerly of Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire, was able to get another acting job, 'cos she doesn't look like an actress who's gonna get much of those. Tea Leoni has one drunkenly-flirty scene, but damn, she was sexy in it. Alan Alda is deliciously hateable. And no, none of them get a whole lot of character development - in fact, none of them get any character development - but they're all fun to watch, and that's about all they need to be.

This is my second movie in a row to feature the downtrodden poor sticking it to the uppity rich, and I'm a little embarrassed at giving them both the same rating; In Time is much smarter and more ambitious, but Tower Heist possesses a breezy comic energy that's simply more fun. In fact, the other recent film it reminds me of is Real Steel, in its eagerness to be nothing more than a crowd-pleaser - at which, in my book, it is just as successful. Okay, so maybe Brett Ratner deserves some credit for this. He may be a douchebag in his personal life (or not; it's not like I know the guy), and he may never live down that third X-Men movie, but he's not a bad director. He's a perfectly competent one. This means he may never make a great movie, and he may occasionally make some crappy ones, but he will occasionally also make some okay-to-good ones. Tower Heist is one of the latter.

NEXT REVIEW: Alamak... Toyol!
Expectations: alamak Ismail Hasim!

Andrew Niccol deserves your time

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Thu, 10 Nov 2011 17:14:00 +0000

In Time
My rating:

Can I call myself a fan of Andrew Niccol if I only like his first two movies? And he didn't even direct The Truman Show; Peter Weir did, from his screenplay. I watched S1m0ne on a crappy VCD and wasn't even paying it much attention, but it didn't impress me, and I missed Lord of War. But Gattaca, man. I thought it was great the first time, and it's only grown on me on subsequent viewings; as sci-fi it's remarkably intelligent, as allegory it's terrifically thought-provoking, and as a human drama it's immensely affecting. So if only for Gattaca alone, I dig Andrew Niccol. The man doesn't make movies very often though, having only four films in 14 years to his credit (not including The Truman Show, or his story credit for that Tom Hanks starrer The Terminal). So for his first movie in 6 years, and a return to dystopian sci-fi to boot, I am down for that.

In Time is Gattaca lite - in that it's a return to the genre and themes he's very good at, but falling somewhat short of his 1997 classic.

Genetic engineering has transformed society into one where everyone stops aging at 25. The amount of time they have left to live is measured in glowing green digits on their hands, and time has literally become money - all things cost minutes and hours instead of dollars, deducted from one's own lifetime. Will Salas (Justin Timberlake) is a working-class joe who survives on little more than a day on his clock at a time, and lives with his mother (Olivia Wilde). One day he saves the life of a rich guy named Henry Hamilton (Matt Bomer) who has over a century on his clock - and who gives it all to Will, before committing suicide. But before he can share it with his mother, her time runs out. With a vague notion of righting the wrongs of this society, Will travels to the "time zone" of New Greenwich, where the mega-rich keep millenia in their vaults, and meets billionaire Phillippe Weis (Vincent Kartheiser) who is wealthy enough to live forever. But when the Timekeepers, the economic police force led by Raymond Leon (Cillian Murphy) catches up to him, he takes Weis' daughter Sylvia (Amanda Seyfried) hostage and flees back to the slums. The disaffected rich girl soon teams up with Will to become a Bonnie-and-Clyde-cum-Robin-Hood team, robbing time banks and giving it away to the poor - but it isn't only Leon who's hot on their tail, but also the vicious time-stealing Minutemen gang led by Fortis (Alex Pettyfer).

Andrew Niccol is a bleeding-heart social liberal. Which is a political leaning that I share, so I can only imagine that those whose beliefs lie in the polar opposite - say, Objectivism, which basically amounts to "the poor are poor because they're lazy and stupid, and the rich should rule the world because they're smart and hardworking and awesome" - could only hate this film. I liked it, both for its politics as well as its merits as a film, but I can see where the former tends to overshadow the latter. It starts with a voiceover by Will saying, "I don't have time to worry about how it happened" (pun clearly fully intended, about which more later) - which is really just saying "this concept doesn't really make 100% sense, both from how it works day to day and how society evolved into it, but just, just go with me on this, okay?" And that's fine. I went with it, and I think so did most of the audience at my viewing; think of it as more of a thought experiment, and you'll be fine.

Or maybe something else, 'cos as a thought experiment, the findings aren't exactly revelatory. Niccol attempts to distract us with some action-thriller business, which is quite effectively distracting; he has a decent eye for crafting an action scene, and Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried make a cute couple. And I'm really glad he didn't pull out the ol' dystopian sci-fi cliché of a bunch of rebels who get slaughtered so the hero can single-handedly kill the one person whose death brings down the entire system. It's not formulaic, that's for sure, which makes it nicely unpredictable as to how it will all end. And its ending is by no means unsatisfying. But there's a sense that this is not the best approach for the material - maybe not a weekly TV series, as some critics have suggested (like I said, the concept doesn't really hold up if you think about it just a little), but perhaps something with more of a point to it other than that the rich victimise the poor.

I keep comparing it to Gattaca, which may or may not be a fair comparison. But the similarities are undeniable, even aside from the dystopian sci-fi angle. The deliberately low-key mood, especially in the acting. Craig Armstrong's strikingly moody score, which recalls Michael Nyman's soaring soundtrack for Gattaca. Both of which work well enough here, and certainly distinguish it from your typical cineplex fare; just that it doesn't meet the high standards set by Niccol's first film. The premise is more far-fetched, and Niccol feels the need to allude to it again and again in somewhat clunky ways - notably, by throwing in a lot of puns about time into the dialogue. Such as when Will robs a rich lady and says, "I'd ask you for your money or your life, but since they're one and the same..." I think Niccol's a smart enough filmmaker to respect his audience's intelligence, but with lines like these, he's falling to the temptation of trying to be too clever.

Still, there are pleasures to be had in this movie. Timberlake and Seyfried are likable enough to make a rootable hero and heroine (and Ms. Seyfried, in that hair and those outfits, is freakin' gorgeous), but they're outshone by the supporting cast. Vincent Kartheiser is suitably oily, and does a great job playing a douchebaggy rich old man. Meanwhile, Alex Pettyfer does not even attempt to play a 75-year-old, but his equally douchebaggy Fortis is a much better fit for those chiseled cheekbones than a teen action hero. The standout is Cillian Murphy, never less than fantastic as the Javert to this movie's Les Miserables; a principled, determined, and intelligent antagonist who fights to preserve this rotten system. But even character-wise, the story's seams are straining - it's never quite made clear why Leon believes in the system, nor does he deliver the expected speech defending it.

Also, there's a pretty shoddy CGI car crash that makes me wonder where the film's budget went - or at least, how much it really costs to make a movie with a proper car roll stunt these days. But that's about it for the film's shortcomings. By no means am I not recommending it. If you liked Gattaca, this is required viewing. If you like smart, thoughtful and thought-provoking sci-fi, this is required viewing. And if you are a social liberal who feels keenly the victimisation of the powerless by the powerful, this is required viewing. This is a world in which the only form of law enforcement is a force that exists solely to protect that society's money, i.e. keep the poor from getting any of it. If this is not only plausible to you, but makes you angry, this film is required viewing. I dig Andrew Niccol, and In Time makes me dig him no less. In fact, it only convinces me that he has another Gattaca in him.

NEXT MOVIE: Tower Heist
Expectations: Ben Stiller meh, Eddie Murphy meh, Brett Ratner epic meh

Filem kampung gothic yang segar tapi gagal

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 06 Nov 2011 12:47:00 +0000

Sumpahan Puaka
My rating:

Ingat lagi TMBF mengadu pasal filem Melayu yang ketandusan idea, asyik-asyik filem seram, gangster dan rempit je? Disini ada sebuah filem yang benar-benar segar, yang cuba mencipta sebuah genre baru - genre yang akan saya gelar kampung gothic. Gothic adalah genre yang menekankan nada dan suasana yang gelap, dan cerita yang mempunyai unsur hantu, tragedi, keluarga runtuh, ketidaksiuman dan rahsia lama yang dahsyat. Filem Sumpahan Puaka melatarkan kampung pedalaman yang melarat, yang amat ngam bila dipadankan dengan cerita gothik. Inilah idea hebat dari pengarah M. Suurya dan penulis skrip M. Subash, idea yang saya berani kata belum pernah dicuba sebelum ini.

Malangnya, walau bagaimana berani cubaan mereka, ia tetap cubaan yang gagal.

Shamsudin (Imuda) seorang pelukis yang datang ke Kampung Sepat untuk mencari ilham untuk melukis. Dia menyewa bilik dari seorang penduduk kampung bernama Tijah (Mislina Mustaffa) yang melayan ibunya Mak Jah (Maimon Mutalib) dengan sungguh kejam, sehingga Shamsudin mengasihani Mak Jah dan memberinya tinggal bersama didalam biliknya. Namun bukan itu sahaja masalah rumahtangga di Kampung Sepat ini. Ros (Rozita Rohaizad) didera dan dilacurkan oleh suaminya (Ery Zukhairy). Seorang pemuda (Syafiq Rosli) sering bertengkar dengan pakciknya dan menunjukkan ciri-ciri piromania. Dan ada seorang India terencat akal yang suka jalan sini jalan sana sambil membawa sebotol racun perosak.

Ini bukan filem yang baik. Ini bukan filem yang menghiburkan mahupun menyeronokkan (dari segi ia filem seram yang memberi kejutan yang seronok). Malah ini sebuah filem yang mendatangkan rasa kecewa, tidak puas dan frustrating. Maklumlah ia pasti rugi di box-office; masa saya menontonnya ialah pertama kali saya duduk seorang dalam satu panggung. Namun begitu, saya rasa ini sebuah filem yang tidak patut diketepikan begitu sahaja. Saya dapat lihat apa yang ia tujukan, tapi saya juga dapat lihat dimana ia tersimpang.

Dua orang harus dipuji dalam filem. Pertama ialah Mislina Mustaffa yang memainkan watak femme fatale - menjadikan ini juga sebuah filem noir dimana seorang perempuan menggoda seorang lelaki menjadi mangsanya. (Filem gothik pula biasanya ada watak anak dara muda yang menjadi mangsa.) Lakonan Mislina memang hebat dan berdimensi, menjadikan watak Tijah seorang yang keji dan lancang tapi masih boleh menimbulkan rasa simpati. Kedua ialah Lesly Leon Lee, pengarah fotografi yang menangkap suasana kampung yang lecah dan usang ini. Syot-syotnya menggambarkan keindahan dalam keburukan kampung ini, dan hasil kerjanyalah yang benar-benar menjadikan ini sebuah filem kampung gothic yang memang istimewa dalam filem tempatan.

Sayangnya, mereka berdua sahaja yang berjaya melaksanakan apa yang ditujui. Skrip karangan M. Subash sungguh amatur, penuh dengan dialog atas hidung dan subplot yang tidak menentu. Kegothikan filem ini ada pada kisah penduduk-penduduk kampung ini yang penuh kesengsaraan dan penderitaan, dan kesemua hubung kaitnya disingkap ketika twist ending. Tetapi yang tertinggal ialah subplot tentang watak Ros dan suami penderanya (yang juga asyik-asyik bermain silat) yang langsung tiada kesudahan atau tujuan. Sebenarnya kesudahan filem ini juga cuba mengikut genre gothik dimana ceritanya seolah-olah sebuah mimpi yang gelap dan bermisteri - tetapi silap Subash ialah, untuk menjayakan rasa "kemimpian" ini, skrip sepatutnya berfokus ketat pada watak protagonis. Segala-gala dilihat dari mata dia; tiada adegan yang dia tak ada. Baru penonton dapat rasa cerita ini bagaikan mimpinya.

Ini membawa kita kepada Imuda serta M. Suurya. Sudah lama saya tak nampak Imuda diatas skrin, samada TV atau layar perak. Dia dikenali sebagai pelakon komedi, dan malangnya, dia membawa gaya lakonan komedi ke filem ini yang langsung tidak sesuai dengan ceritanya. Begitu juga Suurya yang tidak tahu bagaimana nak mengarah Imuda. Arahannya cuba membangkit rasa gothik dan kemimpian, tetapi hampa kerana kekurangan bajet. Adegan klimaktiknya ada rumah terbakar, tetapi menampakkan efek api CGI yang amat cheesy. Suurya juga cuba melengahkan pacing ceritanya dengan babak-babak yang bergerak perlahan, tetapi beliau tiada pengalaman membikin filem seni seperti Ho Yuhang atau Khir Rahman - dan sebenarnya, skrip Subash juga tidak membantu kerana tidak cukup berisi. Jangkamasa filem ini hanya 80 minit, tapi masih nak penuhkan masa dengan flashback memanjang yang mengulang semula apa yang sudah dilihat. Nilah yang paling saya rasa jengkel dengan filem tempatan.

Saya pasti ada penonton-penonton yang sudah menonton filem ini dan mendapatinya amat mengecewakan; malah mungkin mereka sudah membelasahinya kepada kengkawan dan blog mengatakan filem Sumpahan Puaka ini tersangat-sangat tak best. Saya tak salahkan mereka kerana menjangka filem seram yang seronok, dan saya juga tak salahkan mereka kerana kurang faham apa yang ia mencuba. (Genre filem gothik ni bukannya popular sangat walaupun di negara barat.) Tetapi kepada peminat filem tegar dan susah mati, saya syorkan agar jangan lepaskan peluang jika filem ini ditayangkan di kaca TV. Jangan harapkan sebuah filem yang menghiburkan - kerana ia betul-betul gagal memberi hiburan - tapi cuba hayati sebuah genre baru bergelar kampung gothic yang belum pernah anda lihat sebelum ini.

NEXT REVIEW: In Time
Expectations: yay Andrew Niccol!

Still sleeping just fine, thanks

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:33:00 +0000

Paranormal Activity 3
My rating:

In my review of Paranormal Activity 2, I said that I fully expect the next instalment to hit theaters same time next year. That was in January, which makes Paranormal Activity 3's October release 3 months early - but logical, because, of course, Halloween. Which probably means we can expect Paranormal Activities 4, 5, 6 Ad Infinitum on our cinema schedules every October from now on. This third one certainly looks none the worse for having having less than a year's production time after the release of its immediate predecessor, to which it is perfectly comparable in terms of quality. If they can churn 'em out this fast, it should be no problem for Paramount Pictures to get one in theaters every Halloween.

And maybe some day, they'll even make one that's halfway as good as the first.

In 1988, Katie (Chloe Csengery) and Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown) are young girls living with their mother Julie (Lauren Bittner) and her boyfriend Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith), who is a wedding videographer. When strange sounds and inexplicable occurrences start to happen, Dennis sets up cameras around the house in an effort to find out what's going on - which may have something to do with Kristi's "imaginary friend", Toby.

Short synopsis, innit? That's 'cos it's a distressingly simple story, and I do mean distressing. I was already dismayed to learn that this third entry in the series goes the prequel route once again, instead of following on from the second film's storyline; even if I didn't like it much, I'd be interested to (SPOILER ALERT) follow Ali's efforts to rescue her baby brother. Paranormal Activity 3 amplifies the prequel problem of the last one, in that it's a story that you already know won't go anywhere nor have any major impact on the timeline. Katie and Kristi aren't gonna remember much of what happened here - they certainly didn't remember the first time they were constantly filmed by a camera-obsessed male family member - and are certainly not gonna die either. Everyone else, however, is fair game.

Which wouldn't be so bad if these new characters were interesting, enough so you could care whether they survive. They're not. The characters of 2 were already a lot sketchier than Katie and Micah of the first, but at least they were likable (or Kristi and Ali were; Dan was a moron). In 3, they're barely even there. Dennis and Julie have no discernible personality whatsoever, other than he's the curious one and she's the disbelieving one. Little Katie and Kristi do the Creepy Child thing and not much more. In fact, there are two extended scary sequences featuring two completely peripheral characters - a babysitter (Johanna Braddy) and a friend of Dennis' named Randy (Dustin Ingram); it's also pretty laughable how they both get freaked out by something freaky, then both of them vamoose outta there without even telling Dennis or Julie what happened.

And Julie gets the thankless Dan role as the annoying skeptic (by the way, as an avowed skeptic myself, it wasn't so much Dan's disbelief that was annoying as it was his callous refusal to even entertain his obviously-terrified wife's and daughter's fears). But even Dan went through a gradual progression from skeptic to believer; here, Julie spends the entire first half scoffing, then BAM one spooky jump-scare later and she brings on the next plot point. There's hardly any story here; it's a wafer-thin structure on which to hang a mostly disconnected series of BAM jump-scares. Don't expect much in the way of expanding the series' mythology either; we already know that the demon haunting both girls has its roots in some witchy business their family was involved in - and that's exactly what happens. And that's why their grandmother (Hallie Foote) is in the movie as well, which ain't no spoiler at all if you've seen 2.

So all that earns it 2-½ stars (the same rating I gave the last installment) is its jump-scares. Other than two annoyingly fake ones - i.e. people literally jumping out and yelling "BOO!" at the camera - the scares here are more effective than 2's, which I am hard-pressed to even remember right now. One pretty ingenious trick is a camera placed on the base of an oscillating fan, so that it slowly pans back and forth across their living room and kitchen. It generates some deliciously suspenseful moments with every pan, waiting for something to show up that wasn't there a few seconds ago. There are also scary things happening while one's back is turned to the rest of the (dimly-lit, of course) room, and scary things happening while one's loved ones are nearby but too preoccupied to hear your screams - both of which are clever scares that approach the effectiveness of the first film. That's what fans of the series want, and they'll get enough to make them happy.

But that paper-thin plot still annoys me. It seems to herald the direction for the future of the franchise - because there is zero possibility that the studio are not at this very moment developing more Activities of a Paranormal Nature. They'll probably go the prequel route again, maybe one set after the events of this entry, in which yet another person enters Katie's and Kristi's lives who coincidentally has lots of video filming equipment on hand. It's probably not gonna bother explaining that, any more than it seems interested in exploring the future of its timeline rather than the past. With this third installment, the series looks set to join Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street and Hellraiser as horror franchises whose returns diminished rapidly after a great first film - and will probably go on long after it starts to suck.

NEXT REVIEW: Sumpahan Puaka
Expectations: don't know a damn thing about it

A thing that's like the other thing

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 13:12:00 +0000

The Thing (2011)
My rating:

It pains me to say that The Thing, John Carpenter's 1982 sci-fi horror classic, may not hold up too well. I base this observation on watching the DVD with a friend, a self-proclaimed fan of gory horror movies. She didn't find it scary. She laughed during the blood test scene; well, specifically, at the three guys freaking out over being tied next to a Thing. She did not appear to like it much. And perhaps I was just picking up on her vibe, but it wasn't really working on me either (I hadn't watched it in years). For one thing, most of the suspense is based on not knowing which character is a Thing - and when they're going to start Thinging out - so any viewing after the first loses this. For another, despite extensive fan speculation over the years and even a video analysis, the plot is really quite obtuse. Having committed cinematic blasphemy, TMBF now turned to the new prequel movie, wondering if it could update the premise, setting, intense paranoia and pants-wetting body horror for today's audiences.

It didn't do too bad a job. But it also highlighted how the original* is still a better movie, in many ways.

Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) is a paleontologist who is invited to join an Antarctic expedition by Dr. Sander Halvorsen (Ulrich Thomsen) and his assistant Adam (Eric Christian Olsen). A team of Norwegian scientists there have discovered a 100,000-year-old alien ship under the ice, along with the frozen corpse of a creature that crawled out of it. They cut the corpse out of the ice and bring it back to their base - and as they're celebrating their discovery, the ice thaws, and the creature comes back to life. Kate soon discovers that the alien creature has the ability to mimic any living thing, and that it may have already "assimilated" any member of the team - including helicopter pilots Carter (Joel Edgerton) and Jameson (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje) - disguising its true form as a monstrous, shapeless, writhing mass of limbs, claws, tentacles and jaws.

Yup, this is gonna be another one of my "it's good, but here are all the bad things about it" reviews. So let's start with the good stuff first. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is terrific, once you get past how young and cute she is to be a paleontologist (and why can't paleontologists be young and cute?). She makes a believably smart and tough heroine, and may she get plenty more such roles in her career. The CGI creature effects are neat and seamless; they're nicely complemented with plenty of practical effects too, and you won't be able to tell the two apart. The premise of a monster that could disguise itself perfectly as another human being, with whom you are trapped in an isolated base in the middle of the Antarctic, still works like gangbusters. The movie executes it quite effectively, and it is overall a reasonably scary - and gross - sci-fi horror film. And yes, my friend, who was born 5 years after the original, would probably like it better, as would most people of her generation.

But there are "buts" to all of the above. Winstead is great, but her Kate Lloyd is about the only interesting character here. Now, the characters in Carpenter's film weren't particularly three-dimensional either, but some neatly subtle writing and acting managed to give them all distinct personalities. A fan could probably still name them - MacReady, Childs, Blair, Copper, Norris, Palmer, etc. The one thing they weren't was interchangeable, which is what the folks in this prequel are. Aside from the ones I named in my synopsis above, there are a bunch more blonde and bearded Norwegians whom you can barely tell apart - beside one female and one who doesn't speak English - and are there just to get Thinged. And when Sander started being the asshole scientist who cares more about his discovery than human lives, I was tempted to roll my eyes. Carpenter (and his writer Bill Lancaster) never had to resort to such heavy-handed characterization.

And while Alec Gillis' and Tom Woodruff, Jr's creature effects look a lot slicker than Rob Bottin's of almost 30 years ago, I somehow find their Thing designs somewhat less imaginative. Oh sure, they're still body-horror-tastic enough to freak out most people. But there still isn't anything here that compares to the sheer insanity of the original film's Norris-Thing (and the spider head, man), or even the Dog-Thing. I've heard a lot of carping from fans of the original, who'd be satisfied with nothing less than 100% practical effects and no CGI whatsoever - which I think is just so much fanboy carping. Its weakness is in design, not in technical ability. This becomes evident during the latter half, in which a Thing stalks the remaining members of the base in a chase scene. Which is nicely pulse-pounding, as chase scenes go, but again - this is a somewhat cheaper route to scaring the audience that Carpenter knew to eschew, in favour of a slower, more dread-filled and more sophisticated approach.

See, this prequel - that purports to explore what happened at the Norwegian base that first encountered the Thing, that the characters of Carpenter's film explored - is actually a stealth remake (premakequel?), as would quickly become clear to anyone who had watched the 1982 film recently. Too many of the plot points are too similar - even many of the characters and their functions - which raises the question: why bother calling it a prequel? If you're gonna recycle most of the plot points, why not call it a remake and be done with it? And if it's not a remake, does it not behoove you to do more than just reintroduce the concept to a 30-years-younger audience? Why not show us something new? There are some new bits; Kate thinks of a different way to test for disguised Things, which leads to a terrifically suspenseful scene. And we get to explore the interior of the alien spaceship, which is both spooky and wondrous. But the overall plot still goes through the exact same motions of the 1982 film.

This is the fourth film I've reviewed this year alone in which I've had to append the current year to its title, because its title is exactly the same as the older movie it's based on. (And don't get me started on why this supposed prequel to The Thing calls itself The Thing.) I'm actually not too bothered by Hollywood's constant recycling of ideas and material; I still go into every remake or reboot or sequel/prequel/what-have-you with an open mind and a hope that it lives up to the original. But I'd be less bothered if they'd spend as much time expanding on familiar concepts in fresh ways as they did mining for old properties they could repackage and sell. I want to see a proper sequel to The Thing: what if it infected a town? A whole city? How would a dedicated team of scientists and soldiers combat it? What would a post-Thingpocalyptic world be like? And why isn't anyone interested in these questions?

NEXT REVIEW: Paranormal Activity 3
Expectations: another prequel? Sigh

* Yes yes, I know Carpenter's film is itself a remake of the 1951 Howard Hawks-Christian Nyby film The Thing From Another World, and that they both share the same source material in John W. Campbell Jr's novella Who Goes There? Which I've read, so no ignoramus me.

All Malay men are scum and all Malay women are idiots - so says this movie

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 25 Oct 2011 01:28:00 +0000

Klip 3GP
My rating:

(Warning: this review is rated 18 for entirely justified harsh language.)

Wikipedia tells me that 3GP is a format for multimedia (usually video) files recorded or meant to be played on mobile phones. However, it seems the "klip 3GP" referenced in this film's title refers to voyeur videos of a sexual nature traded avidly among horny young Malays - or so I gather, since I am largely unfamiliar with this sordid aspect of modern Malay culture. There are tons of porn available on the internet that are more explicit, not to mention clearer and better-filmed, but it appears the appeal of 3GP clips is its homegrown nature - that they feature local Malay girls. I'm pretty sure they appeal only to Malays; I can't imagine Chinese and Indians getting too worked up over blurry sex videos "starring" local Chinese or Indian girls filmed on cheap handphone cameras. So, this is a thing, and here's a movie that tackles this very thing - a movie that I pondered over whether it's a socially relevant techno-thriller or a sleazy sexploitation flick.

It is not the former. And to call it the latter would be far too complimentary. It is, in fact, a fucking digusting piece of trash.

Eddie (Zahiril Adzim) is this self-made young millionaire online businessman, whose side - or only, it's not at all clear - income appears to be peddling 3GP sex clips. He gets supplied by a number of sources, to whit: three bimbos (Sara Ali, Amanda Misbun and Tasha Shilla) who don't get into any sexual shenanigans but do happen to capture a ghost on video; two slimey mat skodengs (Jojofly O.N.E and Zydee O.N.E) who go as far as spying on women in female restrooms; a camera-obsessed voyeur (Sabhi Saddi) who somehow attracts the interest of a moronic young girl (Faralyna Idris), whose brother happens to be a member of a gang of rapists and murderers (Shafiq Isam, Iskandar Zulkarnian, Din Belon and a couple other scumbags); and finally, Sunny (Fikhree Bakar), who had a one-night stand with a young executive named Maya (Mimi O.N.E) and blackmails her with her sex video, and apparently does this kind of thing all the time with his accomplice girlfriend (Adeline Anthony). So Maya goes apeshit bugfuck crazy - y'know, like women do.

This is Aidilfitri Mohd Yunos' first directorial effort, so I can't tell if he's always this bad. But I recognize screenwriter Sofia J. Rhyland's name from another mind-bogglingly shitty movie, and her ability to tell a story has gotten no better - if it ever existed at all. Its four interweaving storylines have barely anything to do with each other, and it doesn't even have the structure of an anthology film to justify it. It features the film debut of the members of the rap group One Nation Emcees, a.k.a. O.N.E, playing superfluous characters who are there just so O.N.E can have their film debut. The bit with the three bimbos has a spooky long-haired hantu in it for no fucking reason whatsoever - and speaking of those three, the 4-hour drive from Johor Bahru to KL appears to be their idea of a night out on the town. As Eddie updates his website on his canggih-manggih workstation, he likes to keep a video window open filming himself. And it remains a mystery how this supposed millionaire makes a sen off his porn site that doesn't even seem to charge a membership fee.

But the nonsensical plot isn't the movie's biggest problem. That would be its depiction of modern Malay society as a bottomless cesspool of depravity, inhumanity and stupidity. Every male is either an insanely evil sexual predator, or a complete sociopath who can watch a video of a vicious gang-rape and whack off to the victim's tortured screams rather than feel an ounce of sympathy. And every female is either a slut or a slut-in-the-making, who thinks a total fucking stranger filming them with his phone camera is a charming flirt rather than a gross invasion of their privacy. I'm not even fucking kidding about all this. Bad enough there's a dude here who rapes his own sister to death; bad enough there's a blackmailer who calls his victim and tells her he's going to reneg on the deal and ruin her life, just to hear her lose her shit. They'll also laugh, and whoop, and smirk, and sneer, and crow about it to each other while they're at it.

Why? Why would Aidilfitri and Rhyland make such horrible, irredeemable garbage? It's partly because of sexploitation: selling sexual imagery while hypocritically condemning it and those who watch it. But like I said, if it were mere sexploitation, it'd be a better film than it is; the genre is often subversive, made by filmmakers who sneak in ideas such as "sex is a natural human instinct, and can also be pretty awesome yo" past the moral censors. Aidilfitri and Rhyland seem to think their film is a cautionary tale - that people are supposed to watch this and be inspired to lead wholesome and godly lives. Which is not only laughable in how it does the exact opposite, it also reflects the exceedingly fucked-up sexual mores and customs amongst modern Malays. This is a society in which something as basic to human nature as dating - the process of discovering one's self and one's requirements in a life partner, through romantic relationships with different people - is denied to most young Malays via moral and religious censure.

Yes, this is fucked up. I am Chinese, non-Muslim, of a particularly liberal bent, partial to Western societal standards, and I think the Malay attitude towards sex is fucked up. Oh, I know not all Malays are like this - I know there are healthy, well-adjusted, non-misogynist, non-sexually-repressed Malays out there. But they never say anything; we only hear from folks like the Obedient Fucking Wives' Club. They don't make any movies; people like Aidilfitri and Rhyland make movies, preaching their fucked-uppery in cineplexes all over the nation. A movie that portrays Malays as the vilest, most repugnant, most wretched people on earth. A movie that is itself the product of an equally vile and repugnant point of view. A movie that made me write these things, in this review, with that unapologetically provocative title. A movie that made me fucking angry, not just at it, but at the whole goddamn Malay race.

Not to mention angry at the cast, who play these despicable people and look like they're having a ball doing it. Oh, I know I should feel sorry for them instead. I'm sure Zydee and Jojofly don't want to be hated as much as the intensely hateable mat skodengs they play. I'm sure Din Belon doesn't want people to think he's a giggling, grinning, inhuman monster. And I'm sure Faralyna Idris wants to be known for more than just the disturbing amount of leg she showed in her gang-rape scene. So I want to ask: what the fuck were you guys thinking!? Did Mimi actually think the role of Maya - who is alternately a drunken slut, a sobbing, self-pitying emotional wreck, and a raving icepick-waving psycho - would be a "challenge" to her nascent acting talents? I especially want to pose that question to Zahiril Adzim, who is the most experienced actor here and also the one whose presence I find most disappointing. I'd always thought you were an intelligent and thoughtful fellow. What the fuck were you thinking? Did you not know what kind of shit you were in?

I remember once when I happened to turn on the TV, and U-Wei Haji Saari's Perempuan, Isteri dan...? came on - specifically, the violent climactic scene. Then my dad walked in, glanced at it for a few seconds, and muttered something like, "Malays... such savage people." Now, I have no wish to paint my father as a racist (and yes, he was terribly unfair to U-Wei's film). But it doesn't take a racist to watch Klip 3GP and come away with a deep fear and loathing of Malay people. That's exactly what this movie would do to a non-Malay who watches it. It'll make them fear that the next Malay dude they see is a vicious psychopath out to rob and murder and rape them and their loved ones, rather than a regular guy just trying to get by with his life. The silver lining in all this is that it'll almost certainly flop, because Malay audiences are still too conservative about such overt sexual material. But truth is, they shouldn't not watch it because it's sexy. They should not watch it, because it is a film that does real damage to Malaysian society, staining the souls of those who watched it in insidious ways and irrevocably befouling those involved in making it.

NEXT REVIEW: The Thing (2011)
Expectations: eager to see how it compares to the original

The steel is stronger than the flesh

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 03:50:00 +0000

Real Steel
My rating:

Real Steel earned a fair bit of derision in the months leading up to its release. We've been ~~threatened by~~ told of a couple of Hollywood projects that aim to adapt toys and boardgames into movies, and this one seemed for all the world like Rock'em Sock'em Robots: The Movie. Which is probably a laughable concept to anyone familiar with the ages-6-and-up toy, but I'm not one of them; I've never played it. Still, while it isn't the dumbest toy/game to be turned into a movie (I'm still waiting for Ridley Scott's Monopoly), the trailers made it look like a pretty silly Rocky/Over the Top ripoff with battling CGI robots in place of boxing or arm-wrestling.

It is exactly that. It is also, surprisingly, pretty good.

In a near future where "the fight game changed" and robots have taken over human fighters in the sport of boxing, former boxer Charlie Kenton (Hugh Jackman) now ekes out a meagre living taking battered old robots to underground matches - and more often than not, getting trashed. One day, he is informed that an old girlfriend has passed away and left him an 11-year-old son, Max (Dakota Goyo). The boy's aunt (Hope Davis) wants to adopt him, but Charlie works out a deal in which he will take care of Max for the summer for a cash payout. He intends to leave him with his old flame Bailey (Evangeline Lilly), a boxing gym owner, but Max insists on following him on tour. Later they find a battered old sparring robot in a scrapyard that Max names Atom, although no one - not even Charlie, initially - thinks much of it. But with Max's faith, and Charlie's tutelage in boxing moves, Atom starts winning more and more fights - and eventually earns the notice of Zeus, the undefeated world robot boxing champion, and its arrogant rich owners (Olga Fonda and Karl Yune).

I've just realized that I rarely apply the Family-friendly label on a review of a live-action film. Partly because it's hard to define, and partly because I often see it as a vote of confidence that I'm not always keen on giving - as if I am recommending that people take their kids to watch it. (The recent version of The Three Musketeers might qualify as a family film, but I'm not labeling it as such because it sucks.) Real Steel, however, is one movie I have no compunctions against giving the Family-friendly label. Partly because it clearly has a kid main character, and partly because it's good. In fact, kids will probably love it a lot more than adults, and if the robot toys are in stores by now then I bet they're flying off the shelves as we speak.

Of course, 3-½ stars only means it's good, not great. It's still a very formulaic underdog-sports-movie-cum-father-son-bonding-movie, with a side of boy-and-his-dog/animal/robot/otherwise-non-human-friend movie, and it generally pulls off all these elements well. In fact, a couple of critics have noted its similarities to the Transformers movies, and you can go ahead and replace "noted its similarities to" with "think it's much better than". I think so too, although it isn't quite because Shawn Levy is a better director than Michael Bay. (He is on AV Club's list of 10 Directors You Didn't Know You Hated, after all.) He tends to lay on the schmaltz a little thick, his approach to humour can be a little annoyingly juvenile, and there ain't a damn thing subtle about his storytelling.

But the one thing he does better than Bay is to film the robot boxing scenes clearly and coherently. And it helps that he got the legendary Sugar Ray Leonard to choreograph the fights, turning them into genuinely crowd-pleasing action scenes. Unlike its storyline's future-world conceit, I'd still rather watch two humans duking it out - it doesn't hold a candle to Warrior's fight scenes - but it's definitely thrilling to watch two 600-pound machines pounding on each other. (Although I couldn't help but wonder about this robot boxing business. Those things have safety subroutines, right? Something to prevent Atom from knocking someone's head off when Max leads it dancing down a crowded aisle? And when it lies prone after being knocked down, and takes a suspensefully long time to get up - what exactly is going on in that robot brain and chassis? Rebooting its system? Re-lubing its hydraulics?)

I suppose this is a step up for Levy, who was last seen round these parts interfering with Steve Carrell's and Tina Fey's comic chemistry in Date Night and making the oddly action-deficient Night at the Museum 2. It's also a step up for Hugh Jackman, who was last seen round these parts in X-Men Origins: Wolverine and deserves to be in a well-liked movie for a change. Charlie is a charming ne'er-do-well, a role that Jackman can pull off easily; although there are parts early on where his self-destructive streak gets a little too hard to like, Jackman's innate screen presence manages to sandpaper over it. Dakota Goyo is being hailed in some quarters as the next great child actor, but he's just okay to me. He's not called to do much except act precocious, and though he has an enjoyably contentious chemistry with Jackman, the sentimental scenes are still schmaltzy. I thought Evangeline Lilly did more with the little screen time she had.

Okay, I've spent this entire review delivering faint and qualified praise. I suppose I'm just reacting poorly to how many people are hailing it the best goddamn movie of the year, which, no, not even close. Although of course they would, seeing as how it's such a shameless crowd-pleaser. And that doesn't take away from how effective it is as a crowd-pleaser, with a nicely rousing climax. Or that it does a couple of things surprisingly well; I liked how subtly it weaved in - and paid off - Charlie's history as a (human) boxer. Twenty-five years from now, folks will probably look back on this with nostalgic warmth, same way adults of my generation think fondly of, say, 1986's Short Circuit. But it sure as hell ain't no Back to the Future or Ghostbusters.

NEXT REVIEW: Klip 3GP
Expectations: socially relevant techno-thriller or sleazy sexploitation flick? Hmm

Pembikin filem seram tempatan perlu membuka hijab

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 04:23:00 +0000

Al-Hijab
My rating:

Isu yang hangat didebatkan di blogosfera baru-baru ini ialah kenyataan oleh bekas Perdana Menteri Tun Dr Mahathir bahawa lambakan filem seram dalam industri filem tempatan kita akan membantut minda rakyat dan menggalakkan kepercayaan karut. Saya amat tertarik dengan isu ini, dan saya ada membubuh komen dalam catatan blog Tontonfilem yang membincangkan isu ini. Dan ketika menonton filem baru Al-Hijab (yang dah tak baru dah, sebab TMBF sangat lembap menulis rebiu) saya terfikir lagi tentang isu filem seram tempatan; jadi dalam catatan ini saya ingin mengambil kesempatan untuk memincang sedikit dari mengulas filem ini untuk mengomentar sedikit.

Lagipun filem ni, aku kira sederhana je.

Rafael (Pierre Andre) seorang pelakon rookie yang berpacaran dengan Qiss (Nur Fathia). Dia ditawarkan peluang untuk menjadi watak utama dalam sebuah filem seram, tetapi oleh kerana dia seorang yang tidak percaya wujudnya hantu, dia menghadapi kesukaran untuk menghayati rasa seram. Atas sebab itu, dia meminta pertolongan dari seorang nenek tua bernama Mak Itam (Maimon Mutalib) untuk membuka "hijab"nya dan membolehkan dia melihat makhluk dari dunia halus. Ini merupakan langkah yang kurang bijak.

Saya tak pernah bersetuju dengan mana-mana pihak yang ingin melarang unsur-unsur seram dari filem dan TV, dan saya tak setuju sama sekali dengan cadangan hendak mengawal filem seram. Malah dulu saya berpendapat bahawa makin banyak cerita hantu yang diterbitkan di media umum, makin sedar rakyat jelata bahawa hantu tu hanya rekaan semata-mata. Sebab filem, TV, novel, komik, iklan, dll. itu semuanya benda rekaan. Masyarakat Barat dahulukala percayakan vampire, serta macam-macam kepercayaan tahyul tentang makhluk yang bangkit semula selepas mati untuk menghisap darah manusia. Sekarang dah tak. Siapa lagi di zaman moden ini, samada orang Barat atau Timur, yang masih takut vampire? Ini kerana kepercayaan tersebut sudah dipupuskan oleh cereka-cereka yang mempopularkan watak vampire. Sehingga sekarang, bila sebut vampire, kita tidak terfikir makhluk yang mengerikan, sebaliknya balak jambu berambut mekar yang berkilau-kilau bila kena matahari.

Tapi setelah sekian lama saya menonton filem-filem seram Melayu, pendapat saya itu telah berubah. Kerana saya dapati pendekatan filem-filem ini terhadap subjek hantu, bukannya "ini bahan yang boleh kita gubah untuk dijadikan cerita yang menarik." Sebaliknya, pendekatan mereka ialah "ini benda yang benar yang perlu kita patuhi kebenarannya dalam cerita kita." Filem hantu Melayu semuanya menganggap makhluk halus memang wujud, seolah-olah ianya fakta asas yang tak perlu dijelaskan. Simtomnya ada dalam filem Al-Hijab ini, dimana sarikata Inggerisnya (baidewei, saya nak puji sikit filem ini mengambil inisiatif untuk mengadakan sarikata BI, kebanyakan filem Melayu tak) menggunakan perkataan eerie apabila orang bercakap tentang tempat yang keras. Setahu saya, "keras" bermaksud "tempat dimana wujudnya hantu", tetapi "eerie" bermaksud "suasana yang mengerikan". Sesuai ke penterjemahan tu? Mana-mana tempat yang gelap pun eerie. Rumah aku waktu malam tutup lampu pun eerie, tapi aku duduk sana bertahun-tahun tak pernah pun nampak hantu.

Pendekatan ini sebenarnya menghalang perkembangan filem seram tempatan, kerana ia menunjukkan daya imaginasi yang cetek. Cerita yang berkesan perlu ada logiknya yang tersendiri, tetapi apa yang logik tentang kepercayaan tahyul? Tak pernah saya menonton cerita seram Melayu yang membezakan antara hantu, yakni roh manusia yang tidak aman selepas mati, dengan jin, yakni makhluk halus yang wujud di dunia halus. Apa kehendak mereka, samada hantu atau jin? Apa sebab mereka muncul dalam cerita ini, dan apa matlamat mereka disebalik segala perbuatan mereka? Dalam filem ini, tujuan mereka nampaknya hanya untuk menakut-nakutkan si Rafael ni. Ini membuat saya terilham idea tentang Persatuan Hantu-Hantu Malaysia yang sering bermesyuarat untuk membincangkan teknik-teknik penakutan yang baru.

Itu juga premis cerita Beetlejuice. Filem arahan Tim Burton dari tahun 1988, mengisahkan sepasang suami isteri hantu (lakonan Alec Baldwin dan Geena Davis) ingin menghalau keluarga yang baru pindah masuk ke rumah mereka dan mengupah hantu pakar penakutan yang dilakonkan oleh Michael Keaton. Inilah contoh filem yang mengimaginasikan cerita yang segar dan asli, yang tidak tersekat dengan apa yang orang kata "benar" tentang hantu. Satu lagi contoh ialah filem hantu klasik moden The Sixth Sense. Jika anda kaji filem itu, seluruh plotnya bergantung atas dialog "they don't know they're dead." Inilah satu-satunya idea rekaan M. Night Shyamalan yang menjayakan filem tersebut; sudah tentu ia takkan berjaya - malah mungkin tak terbikin - jika Shyamalan percaya hantu sebenar takkan tak tahu diri mereka itu hantu.

Inilah kekurangan filem Al-Hijab ini - tetapi bukan hanya itu kekurangannya. Dialog skrip Pierre Andre terlalu banyak yang atas hidung. Pacingnya juga longgar; Rafael hanya membuka hijabnya di titik pertengahan cerita, sedangkan itu premisnya. Di tengah-tengah ada adegan comic relief bangang dimana tumpuan tiba-tiba bertukar dari watak protagonis kepada tiga budak lori (Bell Ngasri, Munir dan seorang lagi yang tak dapat saya cari namanya) yang tak lawak pun. Pengakhirannya menampilkan plot twist yang senang diduga. Nur Fathia tak lebih dari gula-gula mata; Pierre ada masukkan babak Rafael dan Qiss bermanja-manjaan, tetapi ketiadaan chemistry antara kedua pelakon menyebabkan ia kelihatan kekok. Tapi sebagai pengarah, Pierre mahir mencipta suasana yang mengerikan (i.e. eerie) dengan sinematografi dan muzik yang berkesan; mungkin beliau ada dapat beberapa tips dari Woo Ming Jin kot. Dan sebagai pelakon, beliau cukup berani melakonkan babak panjang Rafael bersendirian; bukan senang nak berlakon tanpa interaksi dengan orang lain. Tapi saya hairan mengapa beliau asyik menggumam sebutan dialognya.

Dan watak Rafael ni bukan paparan seorang skeptik (macam saya!) yang jujur; dia tak pernah menyoal sebarang kepercayaan tahyul atau mencari penjelasan sebenar. Malah, jika dia membuat keputusan untuk membuka hijabnya, bermaksud dia setuju dengan kewujudan makhluk halus yang dia cuma tak nampak. Begitu juga dengan filem ini yang percaya wujudnya hantu dan jembalang, serta hampir kesemua filem seram Melayu. Saya rasa tak salah jika pembikin filem menghasilkan karya yang melambangkan kepercayaan mereka sendiri - mahupun karya yang akur kepada kepercayaan audiensnya. Dan saya rasa bukan tanggungjawab industri filem untuk mendidik masyarakat. (Itu tanggungjawab pendidik, i.e. guru, sekolah dan kurikulum.) Poin saya ialah, filem yang baik dan segar hanya boleh dibikin oleh pembikin yang imaginatif dan terbuka mindanya; bermaksud, orang yang tak percayakan hantulah yang pandai buat cerita hantu. Lambakan filem seram yang kita dapat sekarang ini semuanya hampa, kerana pembikin-pembikinnya tersekat dengan kepercayaan mereka.

NEXT REVIEW: Real Steel
Expectations: it can't be that good, can it?

The Musketeers deserve better

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:01:00 +0000

The Three Musketeers (2011)
My rating:

Alexandre Dumas' The Three Musketeers is not only a classic of Western literature, it is also one of film history's most frequently adapted novels; Wikipedia lists numerous films dating back to (fwoar!) 1903. The ones I remember are the 1973-74 ones directed by Richard Lester (actually two films, which split the novel's storyline between them) which I regard as the definitive screen adaptation; a 1993 Disney version that I happen to think quite fondly of; and a 2001 Peter Hyams-directed one called The Musketeer that was really really bad (although to be fair, I watched it on TV and wasn't paying much attention to it at the time). Now, it could be strongly argued that the Musketeers is one of those classic source materials that have exhausted their potential - or have already been definitively adapted - and filmmakers should just forget about making movies based on it for a good long while. On the other hand, given that there've been Musketeer movies for almost as long as the medium has existed, one could also accept that the novel will always inspire filmmakers, and just hope that every new movie version turns out good.

Unfortunately, in Hollywood's current era of creative bankruptcy, that ain't happening with this one.

The Three Musketeers are Athos (Matthew Macfadyen), Porthos (Ray Stevenson) and Aramis (Luke Evans), faithful agents of King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) of France, who were betrayed to France's enemy the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom) by the treacherous double agent - and Athos' lover - Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich). A year later, the young D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) arrives in Paris wishing to join the Musketeers like his father before him, and quickly runs afoul of the ruthless Rochefort (Mads Mikkelsen), captain of the personal guard to Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz); fortunately for him, he also befriends Athos, Porthos, Aramis and their manservant Planchet (James Corden), and falls in love with Constance (Gabriella Wilde), a handmaiden to Queen Anne (Juno Temple). Meanwhile, Richelieu is plotting to usurp Louis and has engaged Milady in a plot to scandalize the Queen and start a war between France and England - a plot that D'Artagnan and the Musketeers must foil.

Paul W.S. Anderson - not to be confused with Paul Thomas Anderson, who directed Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood - is a geek's director. He made arguably one of the first successful videogame adaptations in 1995's Mortal Kombat, and went on to repeat that success by spearheading the Resident Evil series; in between, he's made a few other sci-fi films including a foray into both the Alien and Predator franchises. The sad thing is that none of his movies have been very good - some, in fact, being downright bad. His new version of The Three Musketeers is one of the downright bad ones. It's cheesy and kiddified and just plain lame. Which is as much as can be expected of a Three Musketeers movie directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, but the trailer fooled me into thinking there might be a fresh touch to Dumas' classic tale here for once - namely, steampunk.

Less a story genre than an aesthetic philosophy, steampunk takes the notion that the technology of the 17th-18th century was a lot more advanced than we thought. Hence, high-tech weapons and war machines, but all with a retro clockwork and steam-powered (hence the name) look. It's pretty super cool, but steampunk fans looking to get their fix here are going to be disappointed; yes, there are dirigible warships, and a blink-and-you'll-miss-it gadget or two, but that's about it. Still, its failure to commit to the steampunk aesthetic is the least of its problems, and more a symptom of its slapdash approach to adapting the novel. Milady de Winter becomes a ninja-tastic action chick for no apparent reason other than to give ~~the director's wife~~ Milla Jovovich more screentime, and her action scenes are more stupidly anachronistic than awesome. And the screenplay, credited to Andrew Davies and Alex Litvak, is chock-full of dialogue that's nowhere near as classically witty as it thinks it is.

Or maybe it's the acting. The acting is pretty bad, you guys, and puts this on a par with Hyams' unloved 2001 version, below even the 1993 Disney one - which at least had Kiefer Sutherland as a terrific Athos, Rebecca DeMornay as a nicely sultry Milady, and Tim Curry at his villainous best as Richelieu. A good Three Musketeers movie knows that although D'Artagnan is the nominal protagonist, it's the titular three that should be the most charismatic and larger-than-life personalities. Here, these classic characters are dishwater-dull, especially Matthew Macfadyen whose expression barely changes throughout 110 minutes. Logan Lerman isn't as smirky as in his last movie, but is no more interesting to watch. Gabriella Wilde's prettiness is in direct inverse proportion to her acting ability (and she is very pretty). This marks the third time Christoph Waltz is wasted in a generic villain role. And Orlando Bloom attempts to broaden his range by playing the supremely douchebaggy Duke of Buckingham, but only proves that scenery-chewing villain is beyond his talents.

The closest thing to a saving grace is the old-fashioned swashbuckling action. But seeing as this is an old-fashioned swashbuckler film, I can't give it a pass for that, since the action is at best merely decent. There are few things I like better than a lively cinematic swordfight, but Anderson is another in a long line of filmmakers who don't know how to shoot a fight scene in a way that respects the choreographer's and stunt coordinator's work. Especially galling is the lamest conclusion to a climactic swordfight since Darth Maul got suckered by Obi-Wan Kenobi in Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. And then there are the just plain inexplicable things - like the slightly dodgy ADR (automated dialogue recording) that sounds noticeably dubbed in places, and the soundtrack that steals liberally - and shamelessly - from the Pirates of the Caribbean score. I expect this kind of incompetent filmmaking from Metrowealth and Skop Productions, not Hollywood.

Okay, I suppose there's one more saving grace: its best performers are Freddie Fox and Juno Temple, whose King Louis' and Queen Anne's romance is rather sweet in a gawky-teenager sort of way. And I gotta say, just because I like old-fashioned swashbucklers, I considered giving it an extra half-star; I expect quite a few Malaysians might enjoy this if it happens to be one of the first Romantic period action-adventure movies they've ever seen. But then I figured no; the Richard Lester version of The Three Musketeers still exists. And there's Martin Campbell's The Mask of Zorro (forget about the sequel), or even the Pirates of the Caribbean films. When one can pick up the DVD of any of those at any time, there's simply no reason to watch this one - a film that makes the 1993 Disney version - with Chris O'Frigging Donnell - look good.

NEXT REVIEW: Al-Hijab
Expectations: don't hardly know anything about it