That Movie Blogger Fella

The Pixar is strong in this one

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 17:54:00 +0000

Wreck-It Ralph
My rating:

As I have previously mentioned, it is not the best of times to be a Pixar fan. A couple of disappointing releases have slightly tarnished its record of knockout successes - slightly, because a disappointing Pixar film is still a pretty good animated family film by all but its own standards. Wreck-It Ralph is not a Pixar release, but it cannot avoid the comparison; it's still a Disney film, and has John Lasseter as an executive producer. More obviously, its premise of videogame characters with inner lives and personalities of their own not only recalls the Toy Story series, but also A Bug's Life, Finding Nemo and Cars - in Pixar's penchant for creating anthropomorphosized, richly-detailed worlds that also provide opportunities for lots and lots of in-jokes. And its 87% score on RottenTomatoes has already trumped Pixar's last two (Brave scored 79%, Cars 2 38%), raising the possibility that perhaps the parent company is beating them at the game they used to rule.

Perhaps. But only because of what they learned from them.

Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly) is the villain of the Fix-It Felix, Jr. video game at Litwak's Arcade, and he is not very popular. While Felix (Jack McBrayer) is nightly celebrated by the inhabitants of their gameworld, Ralph doesn't even get invited to their game's 30th anniversary party. Wanting to be a hero for a change, Ralph sneaks into Hero's Duty, a 1st-person-shooter game - in which Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch) is the main character - in order to win a hero's medal. He ends up in Sugar Rush, a kart-racing game, and meets Vanellope Von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a character with a sad story of her own: she's a "glitch", equally shunned by everyone in her candyland gameworld, and forbidden to participate in the races by King Candy (Alan Tudyk). Ralph and Vanellope partner up to get her in a race and win him his medal, and a friendship grows between the two. But if Ralph isn't in his game, Mr. Litwak will junk their console - and as Felix teams up with Calhoun to find him, they learn that a Cy-Bug monster from Hero's Duty has infected Sugar Rush, thus threatening to destroy two video game worlds.

The trailer prominently features a scene at Bad-Anon, a support group for video game villains, presided by one of the Pac-Man ghosts (Clyde, if you must know) and in which Zangief from Street Fighter, Bowser from Super Mario Bros and Doctor Eggman from Sonic the Hedgehog all make prominent cameos. It's a hilarious scene, and it encapsulates much of Wreck-It Ralph's appeal: appearances by fan-favourite videogame characters, clever in-jokes, and a commitment to fleshing out the inner worlds of videogames right down to the characters. This is one movie you'll want on Bluray DVD so you can pause and admire all the visual detail - from the tiny cameos by more videogame characters (Chun-Li makes at least two appearances if I recall correctly) to the fact that Game Central Station, the terminal in between game machines, is literally a giant multi-plug socket on the inside.

Which is, of course, exactly what you expect of a Disney animated film, even a non-Pixar one. What matters more is a strong emotional throughline that makes us care about the characters, especially our titular hero. And it's there; on one level, we feel for Ralph when he's unappreciated and ostracised from his own gameworld - but on a deeper level, it's about his need to define himself beyond his assigned label as videogame bad guy. Which is echoed by Vanellope, a malfunctioning character in her game who just wants to participate like the rest of her peers. They go from annoying each other - well, more like Vanellope annoying Ralph - to a deep and heartwarming friendship based on their common desires and helping each other realise them.

It's just... we've seen this kind of thing before. Not just the funny anthropomorphosized world, but also the unlikely-friendship storyline. Two wildly differing characters will meet, bicker, then grow in affection towards each other, only to have a heartbreaking fall out, before reconciling in time for a triumphant climax. It's in the majority of Pixar films, as well as most animated films from other studios as well - in fact, come to think of it, it's the classic romantic comedy formula that goes way back beyond Pixar. Which gives Wreck-It Ralph a been-there-done-that feel that's just a little disappointing. It feels like Walt Disney Animation Studios - through director Rich Moore, and writers Phil Johnston, Jennifer Lee and John Reardon - is trying too hard to make a Pixar-ish film and deliberately aping their formula.

Which isn't to say their formula doesn't still work. The fall out is still effectively sad, as is the triumphant and uplifting climax. The jokes are funny, the action scenes are exciting, and the voice acting is terrific. (I did not recognise Alan Tudyk there.) But I wish the film had spent more time exploring other video games instead of staying in Sugar Rush for most of its second half; the videogame in-jokes are replaced by candy and confectionery in-jokes, most of which I didn't get. And having Felix and Calhoun fall for each other is a subplot that I didn't enjoy; Felix is uninteresting and poorly-defined for all the screentime he gets, and a character like Calhoun is an ill fit as a romantic interest. Lastly, there just isn't much depth here, nothing more emotionally resonant beyond its be-yourself/be-whatever-you-want-to-be message - which is yet another thing that's been done over and over again in animated films.

Am I expecting too much of this movie? Perhaps I am. Thing is, Pixar is (usually) better than this. They don't always recycle the formula, as with The Incredibles and Wall-E. Even when they followed it, they're daring enough to explore new narrative and thematic territory, as with Up and Toy Story 2 and 3. They've raised the bar high enough that a film like this - even as well-crafted and heartfelt as it is - just clears it instead of soaring above it. To be honest, I might even prefer something as ambitiously flawed as Brave than something content to merely be the Pixar film Pixar never made. Guess I'm a Pixar fanboy through and through; I'm still waiting for their next to knock all our socks off.

NEXT REVIEW: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Expectations: tempered

A life less allegorical

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 24 Dec 2012 13:07:00 +0000

Life of Pi
My rating:

I am afraid I have never read Life of Pi, the novel by Yann Martel. For a while there it was one of those literary sensations that everyone had either read, or were being pressed to read by those who had. One of my friends loved it, even though he'd come to it somewhat late - a couple of years after its 2001 release. But as much as he raved about how good it was, I never got much of an idea what was so good about it exactly. Its fanciful premise of a boy sharing a lifeboat with a menagerie of animals didn't pique my interest. And I guess I was a little snobbish, but I tend to be skeptical of these "you have to read this!" literary sensations du jour. Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code was one of those, which, yeah, blechh.

Good thing for movie adaptations then, so that I only need spend 2 hours watching it rather than a few days reading it.

A Canadian author (Rafe Spall) visits an Indian man named Pi (Irrfan Khan) in Montreal, having heard that he has an amazing story to tell. Born Piscine Molitor Patel in Pondicherry, India, the young Pi (played by Ayush Tandon) grows up in the zoo owned by his family - father (Adil Hussain), mother (Tabu), and elder brother Ravi (Mohamad Abas Khaleeli). He is a spiritually curious child, exploring and adopting aspects of the Hindu, Christian and Muslim faiths. At age 16 (played by Suraj Sharma), his father is forced to sell the zoo and migrate to Canada, travelling on the same cargo ship that is transporting the animals. In a violent storm, the ship capsizes and sinks. Pi is the only survivor, sharing a lifeboat with a zebra, a hyena, an orangutan - and an adult Bengal tiger named Richard Parker, who quickly devours the other animals. Boy and beast, stranded at sea together, must come to an uneasy understanding if they are to survive - in a story that, as Pi claims, will make you believe in God.

...aaand it didn't, not for me.TMBF's religious persuasion, if at all I have one, can best be described as agnostic bordering on atheist. Life of Pi did little to change that, even if I am generally open to films with a spiritual viewpoint. This one works best as an adventure story, and a visual-spectacle-heavy one at that. Director Ang Lee is no stranger to special effects, having helmed Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hulk, and the eye-popping sights here are enough to make me wish I'd watched this in 3D. The sinking of the ship is spectacularly terrifying, and Pi's encounters with bioluminescent algae are breathtakingly beautiful. The largely-CGI tiger Richard Parker is flawlessly lifelike, and only when you know that PETA never protested this movie would you realise that the tiger - who gets soaked and tossed about the lifeboat and almost drowned - isn't real.

When Life of Pi is an adventure about survival at sea, it's quite enjoyable. Pi's efforts to survive in a 20-foot lifeboat alongside a flesh-eating tiger are fascinating; first he builds himself a makeshift raft on which he can keep away from the tiger's reach, then he has to keep feeding it so that it doesn't just swim over and devour him. Richard Parker starts out as threat, then enemy, then a burden, and finally earns Pi's friendship and affection - but it is always incontrovertibly a wild animal, never a Disneyesque cute anthropomorphic sidekick. Also enjoyable are the early portrayals of Pi's life in India, that include amusing vignettes of how both boy and tiger got their names. Pi's spiritual curiosity as a child lends him the faith he needs to survive his ordeal (and informs one poignant scene in which he kills a living thing, a fish, for the first time), and a lesson his father teaches him about the tiger's animal nature gives him the knowledge he needs to keep them both alive.

It's when Life of Pi tries to be a religious allegory that it gets shaky. The "make you believe in God" part comes at almost the very end, after a late plot twist of the sort that's meant to call into question everything you've seen. And I'm not in the least bit convinced; I'm not even piqued. I can't imagine it persuading anyone to believe in God who isn't already a card-carrying member of a theist faith. (Which probably accounts for the novel's popularity; religious people love it because it affirms what they already believe.) Again, I have no problems with overtly spiritual films or stories per se; if I can accept a reality in which, say, superheroes exist, I can accept a reality in which God exists and is an ineffable omnipresent force in that story's world. But this whole movie builds up towards a six-word line of dialogue that is almost smug in its conviction that it will make a believer out of you - you, the audience. But it just... doesn't... work.

And it puts into sharp relief all of the film's other weaknesses. The most immediately noticeable is that it's often kinda slow; I rarely felt truly immersed in the story, rather I was always conscious that I was watching a movie and waiting for what happens next. (Although this is usually not a problem of the film's pacing per se, but more its inability to fully capture my interest from early on.) Once that ending comes around however, I also realized how aimless its plot was. At one point during the ocean voyage, they land on an island that turns out to be literally carnivorous - a man-eating island. This is what earns this review the Fantasy label, and not only is it a strange and tonally incongruous plot development, it also adds no support to the proof-of-God allegory. Nor does the childhood sweetheart Pi leaves behind in Pondicherry, or the quirky interludes about Pi's and Richard Parker's names, or even the entire relationship between the boy and the tiger. And for all of Pi's interest in three major religions, there's nothing Hindu, Christian or Islamic about those final six words.

So what we're left with is a gentle, warm-hearted, quirky lost-at-sea adventure story that's heavy on CGI spectacle, but also a little too slowly-paced. It's worth viewing on the big screen in Digital 2D simply for the gorgeous visuals - and yes, again, this is one I wish I'd watched in 3D. But as an allegory that proves the existence of God? Or even as a story that convincingly presents a reality in which God exists? Nope. In fact, its allegory is so unconvincing that I can only ascribe the novel's popularity to the fact that religious people still make up a far greater majority throughout the world than agnostics or atheists. I think most people who loved this book, loved it because it merely affirms what they already believe.

NEXT REVIEW: Wreck-It Ralph
Expectations: man, sure took me long enough

Even wallflowers can bloom

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 09 Dec 2012 11:47:00 +0000

The Perks of Being a Wallflower
My rating:

So I think I really have become spoiled by the Digital 2D format. Almost every major Hollywood film (and a few Hong Kong and even local ones) are released in this format, and I pretty much exclusively watch Hollywood movies in Digital 2D now. Costs me an extra RM2-3 per ticket, but I reckon it's worth it. Unfortunately, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is not screened here in this format, and I wonder if the fact that it's also being released under the GSC International Screens label has something to do with it. I mention this because the quality of the prints GSC is screening isn't very good at all. There are scratches, as well as infrequent jump cuts that I'm assuming are caused by a not-very-good projectionist switching from one reel to the next on the projector. Which would bring back nostalgic memories of watching movies in good ol' analog, were I the slightest bit nostalgic about crappy obsolete technology.

All that being said, you should still absolutely watch it. In cinemas even. Because it's good.

Charlie (Logan Lerman) is facing the normal everyday indignities of a teenage boy starting high school: nervousness, awkwardness, social introversion, and lack of any friends. Only his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd) shows him kindness; and though his family - his mom and dad (Kate Walsh and Dylan McDermott) and older sister Candace (Nina Dobrev) - are warm and loving enough, they can't understand what he's going through. But when he meets seniors Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller), he finally finds a place to belong amongst their quirky, insular clique. Patrick is gay and in a secret relationship with closeted football player Brad (Johnny Simmons); Charlie gets a girlfriend in emo goth girl Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman), although it is the luminous Sam whom he is head over heels in love with. But through the entire school year, Charlie hides deep-seated emotional problems - possibly related to his beloved Aunt Helen (Melanie Lynskey) - that threaten to resurface and wreck his life once again.

This film is an adaptation of Stephen Chbosky's 1999 novel of the same name, a bestseller among young teens at that time. And yes, Chbosky also wrote and directed the film; he is an accomplished writer and producer, having co-created the TV series Jericho. I can see why the novel was popular. It's about a lonely and awkward social outcast teenager who falls in amongst a group of equally socially outcast teens, gains self-esteem through their acceptance of who he is, and even finds love. Which can be a far too precious and Mary Sue-ish kind of story, appealing to the most self-absorbed instincts among teenagers (and the teenager in all of us). But this one is good. And what makes it good is a great deal of humour, sensitivity and warmth in the story and characters, as well as a willingness to delve into some pretty dark territory.

But our protagonist is surrounded by good people. He loves all his family members and they him; his teacher encourages his interest in writing by lending him books; and Sam and Patrick extend him their kindness and friendship the minute they learn of his past trauma - that his best friend in junior high committed suicide. Much of the first half is taken up by Charlie becoming part of their circle, experiencing their eclectic tastes in music, their participation in live performances of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, and their casual drug use. But as nice as they are to him, they still have their own troubles to deal with, particularly Patrick and Sam - the latter whom is dating a college student, thus thwarting his romantic interest in her. In fact, it's Charlie who ends up doing something stupid and cruel when Mary Elizabeth somehow becomes his girlfriend.

Because Charlie isn't just a normal awkward teenager - and what drives the story, for the most part, is the question of exactly what ails him. Aside from his friend committing suicide, he also lost his Aunt Helen to a car crash when he was little - but none of these seem to explain his stint in a psychiatric hospital before he started high school, or the "episodes" that Charlie tantalizingly mentions, in the letters he writes to an imaginary friend that serves as the film's ongoing narrative voiceover. It isn't till near the end, when he suffers a final emotional breakdown, that the truth is revealed, in a terrifically gripping scene. The film almost has the structure of a mystery in that sense, with the suspenseful buildup and cathartic revelation of that genre.

As Emma Watson's first film that isn't part of the Harry Potter series, she acquits herself well. Her role isn't much of a challenge; she just needs to be luminously beautiful, which, well, she is. I'm a lot more impressed with Logan Lerman, whom I thought was terrible in two movies, but who was really good here. Where he was wooden and uncharismatic in popcorn fare, here he successfully plays a confused young man who simply doesn't know how to convey emotion; we're rooting for Charlie all the way, and we dearly want him to snap out of his depression and get the girl. And Ezra Miller is a lot of fun, a comic relief character whose flamboyant personality masks a deeper pain.

It's not a perfect film, to be honest. It occasionally lapses into cliché (do high school seniors really perform random acts of bullying on freshmen for no reason whatsoever?) and contrivances (when your friends have ostracised you after you did something awful, it's pretty convenient to suddenly have the opportunity to come heroically charging to their rescue). But neither of these things define it; what does is the sincerity and sensitivity it employs in telling a very familiar coming-of-age story. For some young viewers in those terribly confusing teenage years, this film may very well be a life-changer. As I bet the novel already was a generation ago.

NEXT REVIEW: Life of Pi
Expectations: well, it looks really pretty

Twilight falls on Twilight

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 05:51:00 +0000

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 2
My rating:

I said in my review of The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 1 that I would defend the entire film series as being not as bad as everyone thinks they are. And believe me, I have heard some very bad things about them. Well, TMBF always (has a tendency to, on occasion, be known to) keeps his promises, so here it is: seriously, they're not all that bad. They're not all that good either, but they're a lot better than the books. Now, granted, I have not actually read Stephenie Meyer's books, but I read plenty of online commentary on them - which also means I had the entire storyline spoiled for me - long before I started watching the movies. And on my objectivity as an amateur film critic, I will attest that the Twilight movies - the movies, not the books - have been muchly unfairly maligned.

And it's certainly easier to attest as such when the last movie happens to be as not bad as it is.

Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) has become what she has always wanted to be - a vampire. She is also mother to the newborn Renesmee (Mackenzie Foy), her child with Edward Cullen (Robert Pattinson) and a vampire/human hybrid who matures at an accelerated rate. And Renesmee has a guardian in Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), who has "imprinted" on the child and is bound to her for life. Even as Bella adjusts to her new existence - learning the ropes of being a vampire, raising her daughter, easing the worries of her long-suffering father Charlie (Billy Burke) - trouble brews. The Volturi, led by Aro (Michael Sheen), believe that Renesmee's existence is a violation of vampire law, and are coming to Forks to exact deadly retribution. The Cullens seek help from other vampire covens from around the world, but even though their band is joined by the Quileute werewolves, the Volturi will not be deterred - threatening a bloody battle that many may not survive.

The sole and only reason I am giving this movie a 3-½-star rating is that climactic battle scene. Wouldn't you know, turns out Twilight is at its best when it gives us proper action scenes that acknowledge the awesomeness of vampires vs. werewolves vs. vampires. (I say "acknowledge", because the rest of the time, they sparkle.) That is one big, long and epic battle scene, bigger and longer and epic-er than the last time the Cullens and the Quileutes joined forces against Victoria's army of newborns. That is also a battle scene that does not happen in the original book - and the fact that the plot built up to it only to chicken out at the last minute is one of the biggest complaints against the book. Director Bill Condon and screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg find a way to show us the battle and yet stay true to Meyer's ending. Some may think it a cheat, but I thought it was pretty clever and cool.

Which is exactly what Condon and Rosenberg should have done in adapting the book; and which is exactly what Rosenberg has been doing for five movies now. And these five movies, while never really very good, have been leaps and bounds better than their source material. There's none of Meyer's widely reviled prose; Bella Swan is much more tolerable, even sympathetic, when she's played by a human actor than when she's a first-person narrative stream of incessant self-pity and self-absorption. Kristen Stewart is even quite good in this, displaying more life and energy in her performance than ever before; perhaps Bella is right about the fact that she was born to be a vampire. As a matter of fact, I've never had any problems with Stewart's acting in these movies, and I think there's something sexist and ugly in all the hate she's been getting. Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner sure don't get as much vitriol (and I personally think Lautner is the weakest actor among the three).

And I am certain that Rosenberg and every director on the franchise is fully aware of all the WTFery in Meyer's storyline, and has been doing their best to mitigate it. As much as Meyer's Bella is a spineless, feckless wet rag of a heroine, movie-Bella actually has moments of strength and courage. In Breaking Dawn part 1, Bella insists on keeping the baby that is slowly and gruesomely killing her - and Americans in particular went nuts arguing this is a metaphor for the pro-life side of the abortion debate, because America goes insane over the abortion issue like few other countries do. But Stewart and Rosenberg made it the choice of a young girl that is understandable and consistent with her character, even emphasising her strength of will in holding to that choice despite overwhelming objection from Edward and the Cullens. And then there's the part when Jacob imprinted on the newborn Renesmee - an astonishingly tone-deaf plot development that is unavoidably paedophiliac. But Condon stages the scene as a moment of divine grace, in which Jacob falls to his knees, humbled by the higher power that has transformed his murderous hate into love.

Okay, there's only so much a good screenwriter and director can mitigate that, since they're still hobbled by the need to stay faithful to the books. (If they weren't, I'm sure they'd cut out the whole grown-man-falls-in-love-with-a-baby-and-waits-till-she-conveniently-grows-to-adulthood-super-fast-to-marry-her thing.) In fact, their efforts to make palatable this, the single most insanely stupid thing Meyer has ever written, don't entirely succeed this time. Bella rages at Jacob once she learns of the imprinting, but the scene is played for laughs - and includes the line "You nicknamed my daughter after the Loch Ness Monster?!" that I don't know whether to laugh at or not. It's also very cagy about showing the relationship between Jacob and Renesmee - which, on one hand, is a relief - but on the other, it also means this hybrid human-vampire child, on which the entire plot revolves, is never more than a blank. She has no personality whatsoever; we're only told that everyone loves her, but we're never given any reason why we should.

It doesn't help that when she's a baby, she's this hideous inhuman CGI creation that is the movie's single biggest misstep. Was it too hard to find a real baby?? Whose idea was it to overlay an unnaturally wide-eyed, creepily smiling, computer-generated thing onto a goddamn baby?? Yes, there are things about this movie that that climactic fight scene can't make up for. The small army of sympathetic vampires that join the Cullens include several characters that look interesting, but don't get nearly enough screentime. (Maybe if Rosenberg had cut out that useless fan-pandering scene of Bella and Edward exploring their oh-so-pretty new house...) For all that Stewart tries to play Bella as a stronger-willed person this time round, she still isn't; when Edward credits her for bringing their small army together, it rings hollow. And truth be told, as cool as that fight scene is - made even cooler with the deaths of many long-time characters, and some of those deaths are pretty damn satisfying - there's a distinct sense that it was filmed by a director with little experience making action films.

Still, I pronounce Breaking Dawn part 2 an actually not-bad movie, and I feel no shame in doing so. I still feel the best of the series is Eclipse (no uncanny-valley-plunging CGI baby there, for one thing), but this one's a close second. And I feel no shame in saying the whole series is far from the trainwreck the books are. The first two are definitely the weakest, but the rest does offer some satisfaction for fans of supernatural thrillers, especially of the vampires 'n werewolves variety. (Maybe if you liked the Underworld franchise, but you wanted more Selene/Michael and Sonja/Lucian romance.) In any case, the saga is over; it ends with a credit sequence showing every actor who played every character throughout all five movies, which is pretty cool and a nice ode to fans. I'm not one, and you may never be one either - but give it a try, and you may just find yourself not hating them any more.

NEXT REVIEW: The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Expectations: can't miss a movie like this when it makes it to our screens

"Best 3D Animated Feature Film" my ass

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 16:14:00 +0000

War of the Worlds: Goliath
My rating:

As soon as I got home from this movie, I Googled the Los Angeles 3D Film Festival straight away. Y'see, these are the guys who named this movie their Best Animated 3D Feature Film, beating out nominees that included major Hollywood releases such as ParaNorman and Madagascar 3. From what I can tell from their website, their raison d'etre is, indeed, the 3D film medium, the promotion of such, and the defense against any intimation that it's just a fad whose time will pass. So I'm guessing here that their idea of "best", when it comes to giving out their awards (and I have not been able to find out who their judges were - if they had any), refers to the purely technical quality of their 3D effects. And since I didn't watch this movie in 3D, I guess I missed out on its international-award-winning qualities.

Because by every other standard of filmmaking, War of the Worlds: Goliath suuuucks.

In 1899, the Martians attacked Earth - but were defeated by infections from the bacteria in our air. Fifteen years later, our technology has improved by leaps and bounds due to reverse-engineering the Martian war machines. As a child, Eric Wells (Peter Wingfield) witnessed the death of his parents during the first invasion; now he is a Captain in the A.R.E.S. (Allied Resistance Earth Squadrons) multinational force formed to combat the extraterrestrial threat, led by Secretary of War Theodore Roosevelt (Jim Byrnes) and General Kushnirov (Rob Middleton). He and his crew - comprising Jennifer Carter (Elizabeth Gracen), Patrick O'Brien (Adrian Paul), Shah (Tony Eusoff) and Abraham Douglas (Beau Billingsley) - receive command of the Goliath, their latest and most advanced battle tripod. But it comes not a moment too soon - because the Martians have returned, this time stronger than ever.

Yes, this is indeed a made-in-Malaysia film, because it's production company Tripod Films is a homegrown outfit. This despite the fact that its director (Joe Pearson), screenwriter (David Abramowitz), executive producer (Kevin Eastman) and majority of the voice cast (a bunch of former cast members of that '90s Highlander TV show) are all, um, "import players". Not that hiring import players is a bad thing, had it actually produced a good movie. But Joe Pearson is an animation director of much experience but little distinction; David Abramowitz is known only for the aforementioned Highlander TV series, several episodes of MacGyver and V from the '80s, and a direct-to-video Highlander anime spinoff movie; and Kevin Eastman is a co-creator of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but it appears his name is attached to this solely because he holds the film rights for the Heavy Metal comic magazine, and this movie is based on one of the comic storylines. Not that I want to get nasty on these gentlemen, or imply that they are incapable of producing good work. But the fact is, they did terrible work here.

I had misgivings the moment I laid eyes on that poster. Look at those character designs. Do they look any better than a cheapo '90s Saturday morning cartoon? Oh, I thought, maybe they'll look better in motion, maybe the animation could be good. But it isn't. And it isn't even just the technical quality that's lacking; everything about the animation is lame and uninspired. From the way the characters move, to the palette of about 4 or 5 emotions each character's face is limited to, to the boring and unimaginative - and interminable - action scenes, to the fact that every male character has broader shoulders than a WWE wrestler. This is TV-quality animation; worse, it's TV-quality animation from at least 15 years ago. Charging cinema ticket prices (and 3D cinema ticket prices at that) for this is criminal.

Okay, there are the 3D-animated mechs, airships, WW1-era triplanes and Martian walkers - and the animation on these is jerky and cheap too. Which I could forgive if their designs were more imaginative, or even more true to the steampunk aesthetic that the movie is being advertised on. Considering the time period - and considering the fact that none of these vehicles appear to be running on steam - it's closer to dieselpunk, and this distinction is actually important to the fans you're advertising your movie to. Worst of all, the designs are dull. Every mech is a similar-looking, three-legged, boxy mass of guns that doesn't even look like a credible piece of early-20th-century technology.

And the storyline, the dialogue... good God, is Abramowitz really an experienced and produced Hollywood screenwriter? Was Highlander ever this bad? (I only watched a few episodes; I know the show has its fans, but I was never one.) Or did he just half-ass this screenplay? I think he half-assed this screenplay. The plot is slapdash, the characterisation is nonexistent, and the dialogue sounds like an extremely rushed first draft that Abramowitz never bothered to turn into a second draft. Even the character names are dull; they might as well have names like Girly McFemale and Paddy O'Stereotype. Like the animation quality, it's all lame and uninspired. The voice actors certainly can't do a damn thing with the dialogue - not even geek-cred luminaries like Adam Baldwin (Firefly, Chuck) and Mark Sheppard (Battlestar Galactica, Supernatural), both wasted in extremely minor roles. Adrian Paul sounds positively bored out of his skull reading his lines.

Oh, there's a Malaysian character in here. Shah is actually Raja Iskandar Shah, a Malay prince exiled from his royal court for joining A.R.E.S., and he's played by our very own Tony Eusoff. And at one point, he kills a Martian with a keris. Yay, Malaysia Boleh! (He also delivers one laughable line of Malay dialogue that I bet my right pinky will get cut out of international releases.) So with this ridiculous attempt at pandering to the homebase, are we supposed to be proud of this movie? No. There is nothing to be proud of - not even your meaningless award from an inconsequential film festival. Sorry guys; your movie sucks. It will satisfy no one other than 7-year-old children of harried parents rummaging through discount DVD bins looking for something to keep the little brats quiet for 82 minutes.

NEXT REVIEW: The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part 2
Expectations: well, it's finally over

Komedi, mana engkau pergi?

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 18 Nov 2012 12:54:00 +0000

Istanbul Aku Datang
My rating:

Pembikin dan cendekiawan filem Amir Muhammad menggelar filem ini, bersama dengan Gol & Gincu dan Pisau Cukur, sebagai "Gedik Trilogy" terbitan Red Films. Ketiga-tiganya diarah oleh Bernard Chauly, ditulis oleh Rafidah Abdullah, dan memaparkan watak utama perempuan yang muda, periang dan (ofkos) gedik. Saya tidak menonton Gol & Gincu tapi saya menyukai Pisau Cukur, dan saya ada memuji saudara Chauly sebagai salah satu pengarah filem yang paling cekap dan berwibawa. Namun Chauly dan Rafidah nampaknya jarang mengeluarkan filem; sudah tiga tahun sejak Pisau Cukur baru muncul Istanbul Aku Datang, babak ketiga dalam Gedik Trilogy ini. Saya sebenarnya tidak merancang untuk menonton filem ini, tapi mujurlah ada pembaca blog memberi komen yang merekomenkan filem ini. Saya gembira kerana sempat menontonnya - tapi bukan kerana ia best sangat.

Kerana saya berpeluang menulis tentang apa yang membuat sebuah filem komedi romantik bagus, dengan memberi contoh apa yang kurang dalam filem ini.

Dian (Lisa Surihani) membuat keputusan yang terburu-buru untuk mengembara ke Istanbul, Turki agar dapat bersama kekasihnya Azad (Tomok) yang sedang belajar di universiti di sana - tetapi dia kecewa dengan sambutan dingin dari Azad. Ketika mencari tempat tinggal, Dian tertipu oleh seorang lelaki Turki (Mert Yavuzcan) dan terpaksa tinggal serumah dengan Harris (Beto Kusyairy), seorang lelaki dari Malaysia yang langsung tidak senang berkongsi tempat tinggal dengan Dian. Tetapi sambil hubungan Dian dengan Azad bertambah renggang, hubungan Dian dengan Harris pula bertambah mesra - sehingga Dian harus memilih siapa diantara mereka berdua yang memiliki hatinya.

Kekuatan tulisan Rafidah adalah dialog yang lucu dan bersahaja, yang berjaya menggelikan hati penonton-penonton dalam panggung saya. Arahan Chauly juga menampakkan sentuhan ringan yang efektif, mewujudkan suasana kelakar bagi filem ini. Tapi saya rasa keistimewaan filem-filem terbitan Red Films yang utama ialah watak-watak heroin yang menarik dan mendalam, yang juga memberi peluang bagi pelakon-pelakon wanita memberi persembahan yang mantap dan mencabar. Watak perempuan sebegini jarang dilihat dalam filem tempatan (dan bukan sahaja dalam filem tempatan), jadi sayanglah kalau Red Films tidak lebih kerap mengeluarkan filem. Humor dalam Istanbul Aku Datang adalah bernada mesra dan murah hati; jenakanya tidak memperli sesiapa, dan tiada watak yang benar-benar jahat atau patut dibenci. Ini semua benda yang saya suka.

Apa yang saya tak suka ialah jalan cerita yang tidak teliti dan tidak tekun. Kita tahu ini sebuah komedi romantik, jadi kita tahu Dian dan Harris akan jatuh cinta. Tapi kita tidak melihat mahupun merasainya. Mula-mula mereka saling membenci, tiba-tiba timbul perasaan cinta. Watak Harris pun tidak terbina; siapa sebenarnya mamat ni? Apa personalitinya, apa bezanya dari Azad sehingga Dian memilihnya sebagai kekasih? Mengapa sampai hampir babak klimaks baru kita tahu apa pekerjaannya? Dan mengapa Rafidah dan Chauly hanya menggunakan adegan-adegan montaj berlagu bagi menceritakan kisah cinta mereka? Bagilah mamat dan minah ni betul-betul berkenalan, bersama dialog yang mencuit serta menyentuh hati. Kalau harapkan montaj saja, ini penceritaan yang sungguh malas. Cerita ini malas!

Sifat malas inilah yang amat mengecewakan saya. Genre filem ini ialah komedi romantik, tetapi komedinya setakat separuh pertama sahaja. Lepas pertengahan jalan, langsung tiada lawak jenaka lagi. Mengapa, saudara Chauly dan saudari Rafidah? Ini bukan cara nak buat cerita romantic comedy; walaupun dilema percintaan heroin anda makin serius, unsur komedi tetap perlu ada. Separuh keduanya bertukar menjadi melodrama yang sappy dan telalu sentimental - dan masalahnya, jika separuh pertama adalah komedi, begitulah jangkaan penonton terhadap cerita seterusnya. Penonton sudah bersedia untuk ketawa. Penonton dalam panggung saya ketawakan adegan Harris mencuci rambut Dian, dan pasti ini bukan niat anda bukan, saudara Chauly dan saudari Rafidah? Anda ingatkan adegan ini sedih dan pilu, bukan?

Pemilihan pelakon juga agak ragu-ragu. Lisa Surihani adalah antara pelakon wanita yang paling popular dan berkarisma; tiada masalah bagi beliau membawa watak heroin Red Films. Tetapi kedua-dua pelakon gandingannya pula kurang sesuai. Tomok Indrawan sering kelihatan kayu, terutama bila berlakon disamping Lisa yang ceria. Beto Kusyairy pula, mungkin beliau dihampakan oleh skrip yang tidak membina wataknya, seperti yang dikatakan. Tetapi saya tetap rasa Beto salah dipilih sebagai watak utama lelaki dalam filem komedi romantik. Raut mukanya sentiasa serius dan garang. Lakonannya dalam babak-babak komedi adakala tidak natural, dan beliau tiada banyak chemistry dengan Lisa.

Tetapi saya tidak patut terlalu keras mengkritik filem ini. Dahlah saya memberinya 3 bintang, kerana ia tetap sebuah filem yang menghiburkan - malah saya ingin melihat banyak lagi filem tempatan sebegini. Selain komedi yang bersahaja dan dialog yang kelakar, ia juga memaparkan keindahan kota Istanbul dimana ia difilemkan; filem ini boleh dilihat sebagai travel porn yang berjaya. Chauly juga boleh berbangga atas kejayaan ko-produksi ini bersama kru dan pelakon Turki. Dan sudah tentu saya tidak mahu menunggu tiga tahun lagi sebelum keluar filem seterusnya dari Chauly, Rafidah dan Red Films. Kekuatan mereka amat dialu-alukan - dan kelemahan mereka pula sesuatu yang perlu diperbaiki dengan lebih banyak latihan. Kita tunggu babak seterusnya dalam Gedik Quadrilogy nanti.

NEXT REVIEW: War of the Worlds: Goliath
Expectations: man, I have nooooo idea

Let James Bond fall where he may

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 17:11:00 +0000

Skyfall
My rating:

You know what I was planning to do? Do a Retro Review series on the entire James Bond 007 series to date. That would be 23 movies in total (and yes, I'd include the "unofficial" Never Say Never Again), an arduous task even before my current reduced reviewing schedule. (Let us not speak of my lengthy hiatus, shall we?) My initial plan was to write them and time the last one to just before the release of Skyfall, in conjunction with Bond's 50th anniversary - which, well, too late for that now - but I may still do it. Because I'm a Bond fan, man; I have 'em all on DVD, I've seen 'em all, and man, there ain't much to compare to the joy of seeing how the world's longest-running film franchise has evolved over half a century. But first, Skyfall - the latest instalment in the world's longest-running film franchise, much delayed after its parent studio MGM ran into financial troubles. And hailed by early reviews as the best one yet.

Well, no, it isn't. But I can see why they're calling it that. And it is very good - perhaps even very very good.

James Bond (Daniel Craig), aided by fellow MI6 agent Eve (Naomie Harris), is in pursuit of a terrorist (Ola Rapace) who has stolen a list of names of undercover NATO agents around the world - and fails. Wounded and left for dead, he returns to active duty to help his superior M (Dame Judi Dench) fight the shadowy figure who has declared war on MI6 - although M has troubles of her own, pressured to resign by government official Gareth Mallory (Ralph Fiennes) due to her current failures. With a little help from the new Q (Ben Whishaw), Bond gets on the case and meets the seductive Sévérine (Bérénice Lim Marlohe), mistress of the very man he's seeking - Raoul Silva (Javier Bardem), whose vendetta against MI6 is intensely personal, and whose machinations are skillful, intricate, and nigh unbeatable.

The thing about being the world's longest-running film franchise is that it has evolved in many, many ways over its run - ways that may be surprising to someone who hasn't seen them all. There are Bond films in which Bond does not use any gadgets; there are films in which Bond sleeps with only one woman throughout the film; there are films in which Bond does not drive an expensive sports car with tricked-out weaponry. But the greatest variation has been in tone. Some Bond films are largely serious spy thrillers, even though most are the over-the-top, wildly fantastical action movies with larger-than-life villains plotting world-conquering schemes that the franchise is known for. The biggest tonal shift has been in 2006's Casino Royale, which rebooted the series with a new actor in Daniel Craig, an origin story, and an emphasis on gritty reality as well as a much more human and fallible James Bond. Skyfall, however, is a conscious effort to bring back the classic elements of Bond - as well as pulling back slightly from the grittiness and seriousness.

It still walks a fine line between the two tonalities though. The plot is by no means fluff; Bond engages in meaningless sex and self-loathing alcoholism during his time presumed dead, which we certainly didn't see in You Only Live Twice when the Sean Connery Bond similarly faked his death. And the physical toll his wounds take on him suggest that he's gotten too old, and that the entire era of the two-fisted Double-0 agent has been eclipsed by the new age of cyber-security and techno-terrorism. (Seems a little early to get into that though; this is only Craig's third outing as Bond.) But the storyline's real meat deals with M and what she did to earn the enmity of the villain Silva. It elevates M to a full-fledged supporting character for the first time, and gives us an uncharacteristically small-scale climax at a remote Scottish manor in which Bond's goal is merely to protect her, rather than an explosive action scene at the villain's headquarters of world domination. Nor does this subplot overshadow our hero; M's history with Silva raises questions regarding Bond's own contentious relationship with his superior - and the Scottish manor illuminates a part of Bond we've never seen before in 50 years of films.

But then there are those returning classic elements. Some are given a welcome new spin; the new, younger and nerdier Q is terrific, who gets to be Bond's partner in scenes beyond just the requisite gadget-supplying one, and that also showcase Ben Whishaw's enjoyable chemistry with Craig. However, there's a scene involving komodo dragons - yes, komodo dragons - that feels more suited to a Roger Moore-era film than part of the current gritty reinvented Bond. (In fact, it's a deliberate reference to a bit in Live and Let Die.) And then there's the return of the Aston Martin DB5. Which I initially thought was a callback to the DB5 that Bond won in a poker game in Casino Royale - only, it isn't that DB5. It's Goldfinger's DB5, with the ejector seat and hidden machine guns. I may be alone amongst long-time Bond fans in being less than thrilled by its appearance, because where the hell did that thing come from? It plays merry havoc with the notion that the series from Casino Royale onwards is a brand new, internally consistent continuity. Is this the same DB5 that was used against Auric Goldfinger in 1964? Was that the same James Bond as this one??

(Yes yes, I know there's a fan theory that states "James Bond" is a codename given to several other MI6 agents over the decades. I'll have no truck with that theory. I can't imagine any of the other James Bonds have names other than James Bloody Bond. But one thing I did like about Skyfall is how it both nods to and disproves it. Good.)

Sam Mendes - he of arthouse fare such as American Beauty and Revolutionary Road - seemed an odd choice to direct a Bond movie at first, but he does a fantastic job here. Aided by cinematographer Roger Deakins, this may be the most gorgeously-filmed Bond film ever; a fight scene in a Shanghai high-rise tower shot entirely in silhouette, and the climactic sequence set on a Scottish moor at night lit only by a burning building, are two of the most drop-dead beautiful scenes in a film full of them. Mendes himself succeeds at putting a personal stamp on this franchise entry, with deliberately slow and methodical shots and editing - all the better to show off Deakins' cinematography, probably. Mendes has also acknowledged the influence of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy on this film, and it's noticeable - most evidently in one mid-point plot twist, a villain who's simultaneously eccentric, terrifying and mesmerising, and who's always two steps ahead of the good guys. If you're a Nolan hater, you might find this annoying. I'm not and I don't.

If it weren't for the komodo dragon scene and the DB5 - and really, I'd've been fine with a DB5 that didn't sport the ejector seat and machine guns - Skyfall would be a 4-½-starrer. See, I'm a little concerned. I like Classic Bond, and I even like Cheesy, Campy, Fantastical Bond when it's done right. (The Spy Who Loved Me is one of the best, and certainly Moore's best.) But I really, really like Gritty Reinvented Bond. If there's one thing I learned from having watched all 24 Bond movies, it's that the cheesy, silly, gratuitously male-fantasy-pandering elements are never far behind the wings. I thought they'd put that all behind with Casino Royale. I thought Gritty Reinvented Bond is here to stay. But now it looks like they're back to Classic Bond, which takes it a step closer to Cheesy Bond. Can you imagine Craig in something as over-the-top goofy as Die Another Day? It'd be an embarrassment on the level of, well, Die Another Day. As I said, Skyfall is very good, perhaps very very good; I'm just worried what it heralds for where James Bond 007 will go next. But, if the overwhelming acclaim for this instalment is any indication, I may be the only one. After all, I'm the one who liked Quantum of Solace and don't understand why no one else did.

NEXT REVIEW: Istanbul Aku Datang
Expectations: oh, Bernard Chauly ye? Okay jugak

Get thrown for a loop

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 09:24:00 +0000

Looper
My rating:

I loved Brick, Rian Johnson's 2005 directorial debut and his first collaboration with Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Hard-boiled noir in a high school setting is such an incongruous combination, but good gravy Johnson made it work and gave us one of the most clever and original films of that decade. I confess to having missed The Brothers Bloom, his second film; reviews I read gave me the impression that it was a well-done if unoriginal caper flick, and while I like those just fine, they're not something I go out of my way to catch. Science fiction, on the other hand, is just the kind of thing I'm very eager to watch, and I was very pumped for Johnson's foray into time-travel sci-fi. And for another thing, Gordon-Levitt is in it, and it seems like that guy just can't make a bad movie.

And this time - with Johnson - he's made one of the best time-travel movies of all time.

In 2044, there is a new breed of criminal known as "loopers". Their job is to murder people sent back from the future of 2074, when time travel has been invented and is only used by major crime syndicates. Eventually, one of the people they kill will be themself from the future, indicating that they've "closed their loop" and have the next 30 years to enjoy their riches. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is one such looper, and he sees first hand what his boss Abe (Jeff Daniels) and Abe's hired thug Kid Blue (Noah Segan) will do to a looper who fails to kill his future self - namely, Joe's friend Seth (Paul Dano). Thus, when Joe's own future self (Bruce Willis) appears and escapes, Young Joe desperately tries to hunt Old Joe down and kill him. But Old Joe has his own reasons for coming to the past, which involve an isolated farm inhabited by a woman named Sara (Emily Blunt) and her preternaturally intelligent young son Cid (Pierce Gagnon).

What impressed me most about Brick was how self-assured it was. For a film by a first-time writer-director and featuring a premise that sounds ridiculous on paper, it displayed a remarkable confidence in itself and that its central conceit would work. (And work it did.) That confidence and self-assurance is on display in Looper as well; take, for instance, the part when Old Joe first appears in 2044 and escapes his younger self's grasp. The very next scene is Young Joe killing his future self in an apparent repeat of what we've just seen, only with a different outcome. This initial "Huh?" moment is followed by a montage of how Joe spends the next 30 years of his "retirement" in Shanghai, and how he eventually meets his wife (Qing Xu). And in the middle of this montage, Gordon-Levitt becomes Bruce Willis, simultaneously establishing that Old Joe and Young Joe are the same person as well as marking the distinction between them. The entire sequence is a flashback from Old Joe's point of view - and the way we switch between both Joes' POVs is yet another narrative trick that Johnson employs with aplomb.

Because this is essentially an action thriller in which the hero and villain are the same person - and a none-too-heroic person at that. For much of the movie, it isn't clear whether it's Old Joe or Young Joe whom we should root for; both of them are at times pretty unlikable, and at one point one of them crosses a major moral horizon in a shocking manner. Imagine how a lesser writer or filmmaker would've handled such a premise; in fact, don't imagine, it's been done. It's arguably as much a character study as it is a sci-fi action thriller, delving deep into the psychology of Old and Young Joe - again, the same person. Such a focus on character is rare for this genre, and the time travel premise gives it an innovative new spin; Old Joe dealing with the fallout of his younger self's actions, Young Joe trying to avoid his older self's fate. Themes of destiny, free will and morality intertwine, and ultimately resolve in a marvelously satisfying climax. Seriously, I was open-mouthed in shock at the ending - shock that quickly turned into awe at how great an ending it was.

Oh, did I mention there's telekinesis in this movie? Why no, I didn't in the synopsis above, so I shall discuss it here. Yes, this is a future in which 10% of the population are born with telekinetic abilities, albeit limited to simple parlour tricks - hence it is treated as another mundane part of life in dystopian 2044. (And yes, it is dystopian, as Johnson wisely shows but never outright tells; there are roving gangs of murderous vagrants in almost every street, while criminals like Joe and his fellow loopers flaunt their wealth above it all. Which adds economic inequality to its themes.) Some have criticised it as an unnecessary and tacked-on element, but they're wrong; throwing telekinesis into a time-travel action thriller is yet another daring decision by Johnson that he pulls off with that same self-assurance. It turns out Cid is a telekinetic, which adds an even greater sense of unpredictable danger to the tense climactic confrontation set entirely on Sara's and Cid's farm. Without telekinesis in the mix, that entire sequence would be much less thrilling and suspenseful.

It's almost a cliché by now to praise Joseph Gordon-Levitt's acting. He wears prosthetic makeup meant to make him look like a young Bruce Willis, and it's a credit to both his talent and the makeup artist that the prosthetics do not drown his performance. It's also been reported that he deliberately mimicked Willis' mannerisms, which I did not notice, but which I certainly will when I get this film on DVD - particularly in the diner scene between Young Joe and his older self. Willis' current career alternates between paycheck roles and parts in which he gets to display his real acting chops, and this is one of the latter. But frankly, I thought they were both overshadowed by two of their co-stars. Emily Blunt is fantastic here, playing the tough yet vulnerable, frightened yet warm single mother Sara, one of the most sympathetic heroines of the year. (She's also one of very few sexually aggressive heroines - yet another example of Johnson breaking convention because he knows he can do it well.) And Pierce Gagnon is revelatory. I couldn't believe he's 10 years old; his delivery of his precociously eloquent dialogue makes Cid sound half his age, and his incredibly controlled performance gives the character layers beyond the Creepy Child trope and bespeaks a talent beyond his years.

And there's also Jeff Daniels' laidback mob boss Abe, and his pathetically ineffectual lackey Kid Blue - both of whom tease possibilities that, this being about time travel and all, they might turn out to be more important than they seem. (Abe is in fact from the future, and he gets the movie's funniest line when he tells Joe which country to spend his retirement in.) And there's the virtuouso scene that shows us, in stunningly gruesome-yet-bloodless detail, what happens to a looper who fails to close his loop. Yes, this one gets a 4-½-star rating all right, only the third one I'm giving out this year. It damn well is one of the best time-travel movies ever. It's clever, inventive, humanistic and thought-provoking, yet never forgets that it's also an action thriller. And all pulled off with equal amounts skill and surety by Johnson. Rian Johnson, man. Look out for this guy. If Looper's success - modest, but nothing to be ashamed of - vaults him out of the indie realm and into big-budget studio projects, the future looks like something worth looking forward to.

NEXT REVIEW: Skyfall
Expectations: sky high!

Tiga hari bersama dua bahlol

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 01:32:00 +0000

Untuk Tiga Hari
My rating:

Adalah tidak wajar bagi seorang pengkritik filem untuk melangkah masuk ke panggung dengan prasangka dan prejudis. Namun bagi TMBF yang masokis hendak mengulas filem-filem Melayu, kadang-kadang ini tidak boleh dielak. Untuk Tiga Hari adalah sebuah filem yang diarah dan dilakon oleh Afdlin Shauki, salah satu daripada bilangan pembikin filem tempatan yang saya hormati. (Bilangan ini amat kecil.) Tetapi ia juga mempunyai premis yang langsung tak masuk akal bagi saya. Begitu juga, ia sebuah lagi adaptasi dari novel tulisan Ahadiat Akashah; sebelum ini, filem adaptasi novelnya yang pertama juga sama tak masuk akal. Apakah Afdlin dapat menggilap tahi Ahadiat sehingga menjadi permata? Kerana prasangka saya ialah, cerita asal Ahadiat ni memang tahi, menampakkan dua watak utama yang pada pendapat saya amat keji.

Alangkah terkejutnya saya, bila saya dapati filem ini setuju dengan pendapat itu.

Zafrin (Rashidi Ishak) dan Ujie (Vanida Imran) pasangan yang bercinta, tetapi dipaksa oleh ibubapa masing-masing untuk kahwin orang lain. Maka Afin mencadangkan bahawa mereka mengahwini pilihan orang tua mereka - Afin kepada Juwita (Ayu Raudhah), Ujie kepada Armi (Afdlin Shauki) - tetapi bercerai selepas hanya tiga hari. Kedua-dua mereka pernah kecundang dalam percintaan; Remi (Zizan Razak), teman lelaki pertama Ujie (semasa muda dilakonkan oleh Ainul Aishah) telah mengahwini gadis lain, manakala hubungan Afin (semasa muda Zizan Nin) dengan Balqis (Dira Abu Zahar) ditentang oleh ibu Afin (Khatijah Tan). Dalam tiga hari mereka berumahtangga dengan suami dan isteri yang penyayang, Afin dan Ujie mula ragu akan perjanjian mereka.

Ni yang tak masuk akal bagi saya: apa rancangan bangang mamat dan minah ni?? Kahwin hanya untuk menenangkan hati orang tua, tapi lepas cerai hati mereka tenang lagi ke? Akal korang tak panjang sangat ye? Alasan mereka pula, kerana dipaksa. Wei, korang ni masih kecik ke? Belum habis menyusu lagi? Rupa je dewasa, tapi tak reti nak berdikari atau memilih pasangan hidup sendiri. Kalau tak setuju dengan kata orang tua, cakaplah tak setuju. Bukannya suruh kau derhaka pada mak bapak, tapi pujuklah sampai diorang faham pendirian kau. Orang tua menang degil, bukan senang nak pujuk, tapi itu kan kewajipan seorang anak. Afin dan Ujie berdua ni pengecut, tak berani nak menuntut kedewasaan dan kebebasan diri sendiri. Lalu mereka sanggup memperdaya dan mematahkan hati dua insan yang tak pernah bersalah terhadap mereka. Apa kejadah punya cerita yang menampakkan dua bahlol ni sebagai watak utama??

Rupanya ini cerita yang pada akhirnya mengiktiraf kebahlolan mereka. Disini saya bagi SPOILER ALERT, kerana saya terpaksa menyingkap pengakhiran filem ini untuk mengulasnya dengan teliti: Ujie memilih suaminya Armi dan meninggalkan Afin yang sudah bercerai dengan isterinya Juwita, lalu Afin tinggal keseorangan. Malah ada babak dimana bapa Afin (lakonan Zaibo) memarahinya atas sebab sama yang saya tulis diatas; apasal pulak dia salahkan ibunya menghalang percintaannya, sedangkan dia sendiri yang setuju mengahwini orang yang dia tak cinta? Tak sangka cerita ini tiba-tiba mengambil haluan ini. Akhirnya Afin - yang dahulu mengilhamkan rancangan kahwin tiga hari ini dan mendalanginya dari mula - menerima padah yang setimpal dengan perbuatan kejinya.

Namun ini tidak cukup untuk menjadikannya filem yang baik. Afin dihukum, tapi Ujie lepas begitu sahaja, malah dihadiahkan seorang suami yang setia dan kaya-raya. Ujie tak bersalah ke? Kita tak nampak ibunya (lakonan Fauziah Ahmad Daud yang tersangat nyaring dan over) degil atau bengis macam ibu Afin; macam tiada halangan pun kalau Ujie memilih pasangan sendiri. Dia tetap menurut kata kekasihnya, tetap memperdaya suaminya, dan tetap melukakan hati Armi bila mengaku akan niatnya untuk bercerai demi lelaki lain. Tapi Armi macam tak marah dan tak tersinggung dikhianati cintanya, malah tetap memujuk Ujie menerimanya sebagai suami. Akhirnya Ujie macam jadi heroin dan Afin jadi watak tragedi. Adil ke ni? Apa kemuliaan Ujie yang menjadikannya layak mencapai kebahagiaan, sedangkan Afin tidak?

Saya tak faham apa tujuan cerita ini. Ada selitan adegan-adegan seorang ustaz (lakonan Hafizuddin Fadzil) memberi ceramah kursus kahwin - jadi ini filem cereka ke filem pendidikan tajaan JAKIM? Filem yang mengikuti jalan hidup dua watak celaka ini dan mengundang simpati kita terhadap mereka? Yang memaniskan kecelakaan dan keburukan perangai mereka dengan lawak jenaka? Disini saya boleh katakan bahawa arahan Afdlin cukup cekap dan berkesan dalam menggarap adegan lawak yang bersahaja, serta adegan drama yang bertujuan menyayat hati. Lakonan dari barisan pelakon pada keseluruhannya mantap - walaupun Khatijah Tan melakonkan watak jahat yang terlampau jahat tahap dewa, tetapi sesuai jugalah buat cerita ini. Sinematografinya juga cantik, dan ia sentiasa memberi gambaran sebuah produksi yang berkualiti. (Saya juga ingin memuji sebuah babak kelab malam yang buat pertama kalinya bukan dilihat sebagai sarang maksiat. Kelainan yang amat menyegarkan!)

Namun sepanjang jangka masa filem ini, soalan yang sentiasa bermain-main dalam fikiran saya ialah, "Wei, movie, kau tak sedar ke Afin dan Ujie ni sebenarnya dua manusia yang pendek akal, pentingkan diri sendiri, dan berperangai amat buruk?" Kalau sampai babak akhir baru ia menjawab, "Ya, kami sedar! (Tapi Afin je, Ujie okey)," itu sudah jauh terlambat. Saya rasa sebab utama saya tak suka filem ini ialah falsafah yang berbeza. Pengajaran filem ini bukan "bertanggungjawablah atas hidup anda sendiri dan jangan sakitkan atau salahkan orang lain." Dari apa yang saya lihat, pengajarannya ialah, "kalau dah kahwin, kekalkanlah perkahwinan itu, tak kira ikhlas ke tidak atau ada perasaan cinta ke tidak." Ini suatu pandangan yang terlampau asing bagi TMBF.

NEXT REVIEW: Looper
Expectations: pretty high!

This one is the law

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Fri, 28 Sep 2012 07:15:00 +0000

Dredd
My rating:

Confession time: I actually enjoyed the 1995 Sylvester Stallone-starring Judge Dredd at the time. Stallone was a pretty good choice to play Dredd, Diane Lane was at the peak of her hawtness, and even Rob Schneider was still somewhat fresh and funny. Only the direction and the action scenes were somewhat lacklustre, but overall it was a fun time at the movies (for an excitable teenage TMBF who wasn't too discerning about what he paid to watch). And not being a huge fan of the comics, it didn't bother me that Dredd took off his helmet. But 17 years later, it's a franchise ripe for a reboot, one that's more faithful to the source material. And with Alex Garland - frequent collaborator with Danny Boyle - on writing and producing duties and a British production company and crew (the 2000 AD comic where Judge Dredd was introduced is based in the U.K.), it looked like the franchise is in good hands.

It's certainly entirely different from the first film, and it comes with strengths as well as weaknesses.

In the future, America is an irradiated wasteland, and the survivors live in Mega-City One - a vast dystopian metropolis that houses 800 million inhabitants. Law and order is upheld by the Judges of the Hall of Justice, who are authorised to act as judge, jury and executioner, and the most feared among them is Judge Dredd (Karl Urban). Dredd is partnered with and tasked with evaluating rookie Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby), who is inexperienced but possesses unique psychic powers; their first assignment is to investigate a murder case at the Peach Trees tower block. The 200-story slum tower is controlled by the psychotic gang leader Ma-Ma (Lena Headey), who also controls the production and distribution of a new drug called Slo-Mo. When Dredd and Anderson arrest Kay (Wood Harris), one of Ma-Ma's lieutenants, she orders the entire block sealed in order to trap the two Judges inside - and for her men to hunt them down and kill them.

The main thing this adaptation gets right is the tone. This is grim, moody, stylish and ultraviolent action, just as the comic was. Ma-Ma's drug is called Slo-Mo because it makes the brain feel as if time is moving at a crawl, which is an excuse for director Pete Travis to employ extreme slow-motion in shots that look pretty awesome - especially when it is also used during hard-R-rated action scenes. I'm not one for cinematic gore, but Dredd actually makes a bullet ripping through a guy's jaw - in Slo-Mo - look beautiful, and that is some feat. There's some gorgeous visuals here, married to a unique approach to action scenes that's reminiscent of John Carpenter's Escape from New York and Assault on Precinct 13; a slow and deliberate doling out of violence rather than the usual frenzied, rapid-fire pyrotechnics. It's almost not even an action movie, closer to a thriller.

Which had the unfortunate effect of leaving me somewhat cold. I can respect the creative decision to be different, but I rarely found this movie to be thrilling or suspenseful. Maybe because I'd just watched The Raid: Redemption (a severely marred version that is totally not worth watching, that is), which has a near-identical premise of cops trapped in an apartment building full of murderous criminals, but the film never really gripped me the way a good action thriller should. I feel like in its commitment to avoid all the usual action film clichés, it also left out a lot of the genre's tropes that make it fun; intricate and creative action sequences, ~~cheesy~~ witty one-liners, even opportunities for the titular character to display some awesome badassery. And Judge Dredd is a character who absolutely needs to be awesomely badass. It relies too much on Karl Urban's performance to deliver the awesome and the badass.

But Urban delivers. He is clearly aware that he is playing an iconic character and does a deliberately mannered performance, in his body language and the lower half of his face not obscured by Dredd's trademark helmet. As befits the comicbook character, Dredd seems like he's always in complete control of the situation, yet it does not undercut the sense of danger inherent in the plot. And Ma-Ma makes for a pretty dangerous situation; a none-too-physically-imposing woman like her is a unique villain, and Lena Headey gives her an unhinged viciousness that makes her effectively threatening. But personally, I thought Olivia Thirlby's Judge Anderson stole the show. Her psychic powers were cool, and though Thirlby looks tiny and vulnerable next to Ma-Ma's psychotic goons, she keeps her nerves under control and her wits about her enough to kick plenty of ass.

So a great cast, some terrific visuals, a unique (albeit a little too low-key) tone and a much greater respect for the source material; all these are enough to make Dredd a better movie than 1995's Judge Dredd. Unfortunately, it falls short in one respect, and that's in the realization of the dystopian future of Mega-City One. This is a low-budget British/South African co-production, and it shows - in the cars on the highways during the opening car chase scene (especially the van that Dredd chases, that looks like a 1979 Mitsubishi Delica), in the design of the Judges' Lawmaster motorbike, and in how Mega-City One looks just like the modern-day slums of Johannesburg where it was filmed. Judge Dredd had flying cars and stuff, and even the comics played up the bizarre futurism of its setting. Its lack of a big budget is probably why they chose the premise of being trapped in a single building, but during the scenes outside of it, it shows.

But I can respect Travis wanting to give it a more real, gritty look. I can respect them doing away with the giant eagle epaulettes on the Judges' uniforms in favour of a more utilitarian body-armour look. I can respect them designing a Lawmaster that is actually road-worthy, instead of Judge Dredd's bike that can't actually steer. And I can totally respect a faithful adaptation of 2000 AD that gets the cynicism, the fatalism, the stylishness and the graphic violence right. I'd be down for a sequel that would get a bigger budget to play with and give us more Dredd and Anderson - but it looks like that's not going to happen, seeing as the movie was a major flop and didn't make much money even in the U.K. That's sad. I could've liked it better, but it deserved better than what it's getting.

(By the way, I just got done watching a few clips of Judge Dredd on YouTube. Man, TMBF circa 1995 had terrible taste.)

NEXT REVIEW: Untuk Tiga Hari
Expectations: hanya kerana anda, Afdlin Shauki

Do not watch The Raid: Redemption in cinemas

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 13:13:00 +0000

'Cos it's been dubbed into English.

And the dub was most likely done in India, because everyone speaks like machas. For us Malaysians, it's unintentionally funny - actually no, it's not funny, it's fucking annoying. It's a huge fucking distraction from the suspense and seriousness of the movie.

Pardon my French, but I was really looking forward to this one, and hearing that first line of English dialogue was incredibly disappointing. I just couldn't enjoy the film properly anymore, and I don't think I want to review it (yet). And just because it's a balls-out action film doesn't mean the dubbed dialogue doesn't spoil the experience. There are still actors who are acting, and the vocal delivery of their lines is part and parcel of their performance. There is also a script with dialogue; a poor translation - and it is a poor translation, in which the BM subtitles are often completely different from what's being said - will lose all the nuance and subtleties that the screenwriter intended to put in. There's as much talent and effort put into these elements as the fight scenes, and dubbing the voices - right down to the grunts and moans during the action scenes! - just takes a huge shit all over it.

So no, don't watch it in cinemas. Show a big middle finger to Nusantara Edaran, the distributors, for their dumbass decision to bring in the English dub version instead of the original Indonesian dialogue version with subtitles. Seriously, what the fuck were you guys thinking??

(I may eventually review it off a DVD, but not for a while. Let me get this bitter taste of disappointment out of my mouth first.)

Young and far from dangerous

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 23 Sep 2012 06:14:00 +0000

Kepong Gangster
My rating:

I did not know that the screening of this movie that I went to featured the appearances of a few cast and crew members. I thought for a second that I'd stumbled into a special promo screening, but I think they were just doing the rounds of dropping by cinemas around Klang Valley. I didn't know who they were at first, but after watching the movie - and visiting their Facebook page and website - I now recognize Billy Ng, Rayz Lim, Lenny Ooi, director Teng Bee, I think one of them was Jovi Theng, and apologies to the sixth guy 'cos I don't remember who you are. They said all the nice things: thank you for watching their movie, thank you for supporting home-grown Chinese films, we worked really hard on it, hope you enjoy it, hope you ask all your friends and parents and siblings and cousins and uncles and aunties and whatnots to watch it too. They were polite and humble and oh-so-earnest that I can't help but wish them the best of luck.

'Cos I think they're gonna need it.

Five Kepong boys - Zhong (Henley Hii), Hoi (Melvin Sia), Teo Chew Boy (Hero Tai), Billy (Billy Ng) and Bing (Rayz Lim) - join the 390 triad under the custodianship of Thong (Jovi Theng) and the leadership of Fo San (Lenny Ooi). They are righteous and badass and unafraid to get their hands dirty, and so they rise rapidly through the triad ranks. Life is good; Billy gets a main squeeze in Cindy (Agnes Lim) and Zhong falls for the sweet and innocent Tong Tong (Tracy Cheong). But rival triad captain Hak Loong (Wilson Tin) has a grudge against them, and their own weaknesses threaten to be their undoing: Teo Chew Boy's greed; Billy's recklessness; Zhong's obliviousness; Hoi's lust for power and for the gang Madam (Linda Liao), Fo San's mistress; and the big flashing sign floating above Bing's head that says "死定*".

I'll say this: this movie started off somewhat impressively to me. It covers the five boys' backstories during their school days and their motivation for joining a triad (because they're sick of being bullied by gang-affiliated schoolmates) within the first two minutes, followed by their early careers as low-level triad footsoldiers in the next three, before the story starts in earnest when they start making a name for themselves in their gang. This is what's known as economical storytelling, and it's a rare and good thing. Unfortunately, five minutes is about all I was impressed with. The one best word to describe Kepong Gangster is amateurish. What I thought was economical storytelling was more a symptom of its complete lack of attention to detail.

Let's start with the acting. No wait - first, the casting. Henley Hii is that babyfaced fella on the left of the poster up there, and no matter how hard he scowls he just can't play a convincing gangster. He looks more like a boyband member, and indeed, he's a musical artiste in his day job; Googling him reveals even more hilariously un-gangster-like photos. Hii and the rest of the cast are either terribly wooden (the younger ones) or wildly over-the-top (the older dudes - especially Wilson Tin, whose Hak Loong is so sleazy and nasty I can't believe anyone would even want to be near him) with no middle ground whatsoever. Though it's not like the screenplay, co-written by Teng Bee and Eddie Tiger, give them anything to work with.

There's nothing in the plot that you haven't already seen in Hong Kong gangster flicks such as Young and Dangerous, which is the film series it most wants to be - though it can still be good if it's done with style and wit. But Kepong Gangster has neither. It wants to have a scene in which one of our five heroes' girlfriends gets raped, so she shows up at a triad dinner looking for her boyfriend, and when she can't find him she just stands around like an idiot. And then one gang boss gets in his head that this innocent-looking total stranger is who he wants to bed tonight. The way this bit plays out is nothing short of laughably contrived. Every scene and every character is one-note; f'rinstance Bing, whose total nerdiness makes him look stupid rather than the comic relief Teng clearly wants him to be. We know he's supposed to be the one guy completely unsuited to being a gangster; the way this movie does it, he is neither funny nor endearing, just annoying.

The whole thing looks like a cheapie TV serial rather than a theatrical release. Many Hong Kong crime drama films I've seen also have bad writing and acting, but at least they have the budget for effective action scenes and an eye for good cinematography. Again, Kepong Gangster has neither; whoever the cinematographer is, his skills are apparently limited to making sure the shot is in focus. As for action scenes, there's really only one, the usual clichéd brawl between rival stick- and parang-wielding gangsters; the only thing notable about it is how people who get slashed by parangs don't bleed at all. In fact, it's frustratingly coy about sex and violence, which you can't avoid in a gangster film and which are in your story anyway; the sex scene between Hoi and Madam cuts away so quickly I'd've thought the parents of the kids in the audience edited this. And yes, there were kids in the audience. Were they who this movie is made for?

And then there's that hugely annoying extended Kaspersky product placement sequence, in which Bing's grandmother (played by Lai Meng) mistakes the antivirus software for medicine that her grandson needs. Note to Mr. Teng Bee: people laughed at this scene out of derision, not mirth. But when all is said and done, I can't hate on this movie too much. There's a scrappy can-do spirit to it that one can at least sympathise with, if not quite be charmed by. It's like a school play put on by a bunch of cluelessly overambitious kids - albeit polite, humble and earnest kids. I probably would've rated this 2 stars if they hadn't showed up at my cinema asking the audience so nicely for their support. And for their sake, I hope they get some. But the kindest thing a viewer is going to think as he walks out is, "well, that was a good try." It certainly tried - but it definitely ain't good.

(Oh, and as a resident of Kepong, I did admittedly get a kick out of its real-life references to my neighbourhood. Yes, there is a Goldhill Club here, and yes, it did move here from its former location in Jalan Ipoh. But I sure didn't know there was so much drama in the lives of its owners.)

NEXT REVIEW: The Raid: Redemption
Expectations: ooohhh yeeaaahhh

* "Dead meat".

Budi the leap year idiot baby

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 16 Sep 2012 04:56:00 +0000

29 Februari
My rating:

It isn't too often that I review a Malay film in English. This is because - and here's a glimpse behind the scenes here at TMBF - I get my highest number of hits whenever I do a local film review in BM. (Which really behooves me to do them more often, but with shit like Salam Cinta and Halim Munan in cinemas, I just can't be arsed.) But when I do write an English review of a Malay movie, it's for a variety of reasons; one of which is because I need the language I am most fluent in to express my extremely strong opinions of that movie. Or maybe I'm just feeling a little too lazy to take the extra effort to write in BM.

And in this case, it's because I have no idea how to say "twee" and "precious" in BM.

Budi (Remy Ishak) was born on the 29th of February in 1896, which gives him the magical ability to age only one year for every four years. In 1941, he is orphaned when the Japanese invade Malaya, and becomes a resident of an orphanage where he becomes best friends with Razak (Izzue Islam), who is blind. In 1957, just after the Merdeka declaration, he meets and falls for a Chinese girl named Lily (Jojo Goh) - but her father's (Chew Kin Wah) objections to their interracial relationship forces them apart. Though he spends the next decades searching for her, Budi will not see her again - until 2012, when he is living in Penang and runs a florist shop with two employees, Johan (Fizz Fairuz) and Arif (Muniff Isa).

It's right there on the poster - the first 3D Malaysian-made movie. Which... why? There's nothing about this film that seems to need 3D. It's not an action movie, nor does it have spectacular visuals or special effects. It doesn't even have shots of things flying at the screen, which is far from the best use of 3D but would at least justify having it. I saw it in good ol' 2D and didn't think it ever needed any 3D at all. (Which, to be fair, is how I feel about almost every 3D film anyway.) And I think this is symptomatic of what's wrong with 29 Februari - namely, it doesn't know what kind of movie it wants to be.

It's clearly reminiscent of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Forrest Gump (there's even a scene where Remy Ishak is digitally inserted into footage of Tun Dr. Mahathir from 1985), although the premise is different enough to stand on its own. The thing is, both those films were made for adults. Both were rated PG-13, both dealt with adult subject matter, and both had an adult sensibility. 29 Februari is not and does not, on all counts. The characters, the dialogue, the humour, are all juvenile and shallow and one-dimensional. Characters like Razak and Lily's sister (whose actress' name I can't find) are positively annoying; the former does nothing but whine and complain about his blindness, the latter is downright evil in how she keeps sabotaging her sister's and Budi's relationship. Even that central romance does nothing to make us root for them. This is a couple whose conversations involve such deeply insightful topics as, "Kalau Budi jadi kelip-kelip, ke mana Budi nak terbang?"

And for a film that traverses 116 years, there's nothing epic about it; it hardly ever truly examines this grand sweep of Malaysian history. We see Budi's parents killed when the Japanese invade, but we don't know how he actually lived during the occupation; we see him at Stadium Merdeka during Tunku Abdul Rahman's declaration, but after that he never seems to care that he is now a citizen of an independent nation. There's also a scene that takes place during the May 13 riots in 1969, but again, it's more interested in talking about his lost love Lily than in what's happening to the country at the time. But what really sinks this story is the fact that Budi can live over a hundred years, yet still be so dumb.

Seriously, does he mentally age 4 times as slow as other people too? In 1941, physically he is 11 and he looks as such. But he's also been alive for 45 years, and he sure doesn't act like a 45-year-old. And in 1957 when he meets Lily, he is 61 years old but he should look 15 (which makes it a boo-boo that Remy plays him at this point), and yet he behaves just like a lovesick teenage boy. Worst of all is when he encounters Lily again in 2012, yet appears shocked that she is now an old woman. Dude! You did not know that you age slower than everyone else?? It took you 116 years to find that out?? This is a guy who should have accumulated over a century's worth of experience, maturity and wisdom - qualities that, incidentally, this very movie lacks utterly.

Oh, and it's also a musical. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but is 6 song sequences - and only 4 songs, since one is repeated twice - a little, well, little for a musical film? I'm not too fond of musicals, and this movie is just the reason why: because musicals always have this artificiality about it, hence why people tend to break out into song and dance. 29 Februari has that artificial, contrived feel in spades; it tries so hard to be sweet and romantic and epic but just turns out far too twee and precious. Like it thinks a pretty tune set to some grand orchestral arrangement is all it takes to evoke soaring emotion. Oh, did I say song and dance? No - there are song sequences but no song-and-dance sequences. There is no dancing in this musical film. See what I mean about not knowing what kind of movie it wants to be?

I'll give it credit for being ambitious. I'll give KRU Studios credit just for attempting a magical-realist-fantasy-historical-drama-musical-romance. I'll give Remy props for an effective, impressively nuanced performance, and Jojo Goh for a charming presence; I'll even admit they both had some nice chemistry despite their dumb-as-rocks dialogue. (Although I'm sick of seeing Chew Kin Wah as the Designated Chinese Villain in Malay Movies.) But I don't think Edry Abdul Halim, who directed Magika, is a good director yet - nor Amir Hafizi, who wrote Hikayat Merong Mahawangsa, a good writer. Aside from Remy and Goh, everything good about this movie is in what it tried to be. Maybe Edry's and Amir's problem isn't that they don't know what kind of movie they're trying to make. Maybe their problem is that they're just not good enough to make it.

NEXT REVIEW: Kepong Gangster
Expectations: ohhh boy - no idea how this one's gonna turn out

Hurry hurry biker come to me

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 15:51:00 +0000

Premium Rush
My rating:

This movie owes a lot to Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and I mean a lot. It was filmed two years ago and had its release delayed (due to a copyright infringement lawsuit), and may not have even gotten into theatres if its lead actor hadn't broken out in Inception and The Dark Knight Rises since then. Gordon-Levitt is also responsible for this review you're reading right now, because he's the only reason I decided to watch this. I no longer review a new release every week, and this movie looked insignificant enough that I could skip it. Although I might've made an exception for David Koepp, who's on writing and directing duty. As one of Hollywood's highest-paid screenwriters, anything Koepp does in which he actually gets to hold the reins should be interesting; case in point, 1999's Stir of Echoes, a pretty good supernatural thriller unfairly overshadowed by The Sixth Sense.

Turns out this is much more a David Koepp movie - and possibly a Michael Shannon one - than a Joseph Gordon-Levitt movie.

Wilee (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is New York City's best bike messenger, and probably also its most reckless - which puts a strain on his relationship with fellow messenger Vanessa (Dania Ramirez) and gives an opening to his romantic rival Manny (Wolé Parks). One day, his dispatcher Raj (Aasif Mandvi) assigns him to a package from Vanessa's roommate Nima (Jamie Chung) - but then he is accosted by police detective Bobby Monday (Michael Shannon) who tries to take it from him. The package is actually a ticket worth a great deal of money, that Nima intends to use to bring her son to the States from China, but Monday needs it to pay off his gambling debts. So begins a massive chase across the city between Monday and Wilee that will also involve Vanessa, Manny, one hapless bicycle cop (Christopher Place), and the entire NYC bike courier industry.

TMBF is not the kind of movie buff that follows actors. What I look for in a film is story more than anything else, and that's why screenwriters and directors come first in my list of People Whose Films I Choose to Look Out For (Or Alternatively, to Avoid). So when I say that the fact that Gordon-Levitt is in this movie is the only reason I decided to watch it, it isn't because I love watching him so much that I gotta catch everything he's in - although of course, his performances are always good if not great. It's because in the past few years, he's shown that rare ability to pick projects that always turn out to be good films; yes, even G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra. And it's rare because it's pretty damn hard to tell how good a movie will turn out when all you have is a screenplay and a director giving you the spiel about how good it'll turn out.

But if that director is David Koepp, then you're at least guaranteed that the screenplay will be a solid piece of genre writing. His filmography as writer includes some very big blockbusters, none of which are truly representative of his writing; the bigger the movie, the bigger the names attached to it (i.e. director and star), the more the script will be altered and revised - with or without the writer's involvement. So I tend to look out for movies by writers-turned-directors, because they will invariably be as gleeful as a kid in a candy store to finally have full creative control. (Well, sort of, there's still the studio to please, but if it's willing to greenlight a project directed by a screenwriter, then it's most likely willing to be hands-off on a movie that they also don't expect to be a big hit anyway.) And Koepp's glee is pretty darn evident in Premium Rush.

Okay, okay, let's get to the movie finally. It's an action thriller that's a lot more light-hearted and fun than most movies that fall under that genre. AV Club's Scott Tobias describes it as a live-action cartoon in which our hero Wilee is more the Roadrunner, and everyone who tries to apprehend or catch up to him, the coyote. This is not at all an inaccurate depiction of the movie, in fact it's probably the best frame of reference to have while watching it. Koepp is having a grand old time with twists, turns, reversals, all the tricks of the thriller trade to keep you on the edge of your seat. He even toys with chronology, with a non-linear timeline that starts somewhere around 5.30pm (and the ticket needs to reach its destination by 7pm) but has a tendency to rewind to earlier in the day and fill in a little backstory - e.g. exactly what kind of trouble Monday got himself into to need so much money so desperately.

And there are also bits where Wilee makes split-second decisions on which way to weave around traffic, and we see the disastrous outcomes of the wrong decisions; go left and he crashes into a baby carriage, go right and a guy gets run over by a truck with a hilarious Wilhelm scream. The movie's playful tone is also accentuated by a gloriously over-the-top performance by Michael Shannon, playing a villain who has no redeeming qualities whatsoever and knows it damn well. Shannon actually outshines Gordon-Levitt here, whose role doesn't challenge him beyond providing a solidly charismatic and likeable hero for the audience to root for. Unfortunately, the cast has a weak link in Jamie Chung, who can only frown prettily for almost the entire movie. And in the Chinatown scenes when the dialogue switches to Mandarin, her lack of proficiency in the language is apparent.

But as good as it is, it appears to be a confirmed box-office flop. Sigh... I guess "biker action thriller" doesn't pull in the crowds, even with Gordon-Levitt's name attached. However, I think it's destined to be one of those films that only finds an audience on DVD and screenings on HBO, prompting people to ask "why have I never heard of this movie?" and "why did nobody watch it when it was released in theatres?" I haven't even mentioned the chase scenes, of which there are plenty and are plenty exciting - or the minor antagonist in the nameless bike cop who also tries to apprehend Wilee and fails as spectacularly as Monday. Seriously, this movie is just a heap o' fun. Watch it if you can - when it shows up on HBO.

NEXT REVIEW: 29 Februari
Expectations: hmm, premis yang menarik

All brawn, still not much fun

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 05:16:00 +0000

The Expendables 2
My rating:

I wasn't too keen on The Expendables two years ago. There were four ensemble action movies that year, and I felt that one was clearly the weakest of them all; the least clever, the least fun, and the least funny (also the most in need of a sense of humour). And for a movie predicated on putting together a supergroup of '80s action movie icons, it cheated big time with never-beens like (MMA champion) Randy Couture and (NFL player and deodorant spokesman) Terry Crews. Yet it's the only one that gets a sequel, so shows how much I know. I guess the nostalgia value of seeing old-school action heroes from the '80s really does sell tickets worldwide, though its charms were somewhat lost on me.

And they're still not working.

The mercenary team led by Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) and comprising Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), Yin Yang (Jet Li), Hale Caesar (Terry Crews), Toll Road (Randy Couture), Gunnar Jensen (Dolph Lundgren) and new member Billy the Kid (Liam Hemsworth) are forced into a new mission by CIA operative Church (Bruce Willis). The job involves retrieving an item from a safe in a crashed plane in Eastern Europe - and also comes with another new member Maggie Chan (Yu Nan) as the safecracker. But after obtaining the Macguffin, they are ambushed by Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme) who leads his own private army called the Sangs. Vilain takes the item - which turns out to be blueprints of an abandoned mine in which is hidden five tons of weapons-grade plutonium - and kills one of the team. Swearing revenge, Ross and the Expendables must now track down Vilain and stop him - and along the way, they'll get a little help from fellow veteran mercenaries Trench (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Booker (Chuck Norris).

In certain ways, this sequel is an improvement on it predecessor. Instead of having Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis in a mere cameo, this time they're in a proper action scene - and throws in Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme to boot. It's more aware of its cheesy appeal; there are references to "I'll be back" and "Yippee-ki-yay", and Norris recites a Chuck Norris Fact. (Also, "Vilain".) Crews and Couture have more presence this time, making it feel like a proper ensemble instead of a Sylvester Stallone-Jason Statham buddy movie like the first one was. Simon West is a more competent director of action movies than Stallone (or most likely his 2nd-unit director), and the action scenes are better composed and edited. There are even a couple of funny lines of dialogue. But none of this made much of an impression on me, nor persuaded me to give it a higher rating.

See, maybe I just don't get the whole '80s action thing. I actually missed out on a lot of those movies, particularly those with Norris and Van Damme, who were always more low-rent than Schwarzenegger and Stallone. (And I don't think I've even watched Rambo III all the way. Have it on DVD, tried it once, fell asleep.) So pulling them out of retirement and putting them all together doesn't really do anything for me; in fact, all it does is highlight how little appeal they have besides kicking ass on camera. They're dull. The titular team, supposedly a tightly-knit band of fighting men, have little chemistry with each other. Every time they're not in an action scene, they all just seem really awkward. And in the case of the 72-year-old Norris, we're meant to believe he's an awesome badass when he barely even throws a punch.

Perhaps it's not that they don't have any real screen presence - because they certainly don't in this movie - but that they would if the movie found ways to play up their natural personalities. Or maybe if the screenplay gave them some. Dolph Lundgren gets to be the comic relief - a role for which, unfortunately, he is eminently unsuited - and that's the kind of thing that suffices to distinguish one macho lunkhead from another in this movie. These guys just aren't much fun to be around, even when they're kicking ass and mowing down hundreds of faceless bad guys. I mentioned Red, another movie with a similar senior-citizen-action-heroes premise, and that one was so much more fun - because John Malkovich, Helen Mirren, Brian Cox and Richard Dreyfuss are much better actors who can liven up even a cheesy action movie that should be beneath their talents.

And so the problems with the original remain - namely, not knowing how to be as much fun as it should be. It doesn't know whether to be a straight-faced throwback to ultraviolent '80s action flicks (no it shouldn't) or a more winking, deliberately cheesy homage-cum-parody of same (yes, that's more like it). Stallone - 'cos it's clearly him driving this franchise, even if he isn't directing this time - seems like he's leaning more towards the former, whereas the humourous self-referential elements seem more like afterthoughts. At times, this film asks to be taken seriously, such as the aforementioned death of a member of the team and the funeral scene that follows. Which is clearly meant to be all sad and tragic, but is more likely to evoke boredom at best, derisive laughter at worst. We didn't come to this movie for pathos, Stallone - we came to cheer and whoop and laugh, and if you can't make us laugh with you then we'll laugh at you.

Still, it's as well-made as an action film can be. The action sequences have a bit more creativity to them than in the last one, and there is a thrill in watching Stallone, Schwarzenegger and Willis side by side going all God Mode on a bunch of goons. But watching Chuck Norris walk out of smoke in slo-mo to a steel guitar soundtrack does nothing for me. A climactic Stallone-Van Damme fight scene... meh. (The Statham-Scott Adkins fight was more fun.) Lundgren making cracks about his real-life academic credentials... could've been fun, but it's Lundgren making them, and he's just no comedian. And though I doubt more of his presence would've made much difference, Jet Li is summarily and inexplicably written out of the movie after the opening action scene. Maybe he realised, like I did, that all this series has going for it is its premise, but it never really does anything with it.

NEXT REVIEW: Premium Rush
Expectations: yay Joseph Gordon-Levitt... and yay David Koepp?

Mari kita twist sekali lagi

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 16:31:00 +0000

SAM
My rating:

Sempat juga TMBF menonton filem ini. Ia mula tayang hampir 3 minggu yang lalu, dan saya pula dah tak larat nak mengulas setiap filem tempatan yang keluar di panggung. (Saya pasti hidup saya tidak berkurangan kerana tidak menonton Seram Sejuk.) Banyak pula filem Hollywood yang belum saya tonton lagi. Tetapi filem SAM ini menarik minat saya, kerana genre psychological thriller ini jarang saya nampak dalam filem tempatan... malah, tak pernah saya menonton sebuah cerita ngeri psikologi buatan tempatan. Jadi nasib baiklah ia masih sedang ditayang sehingga minggu ketiga - walaupun menurut berita, kutipannya tidak begitu memberangsangkan.

Tapi ia sepatutnya lebih berjaya, kerana ia filem yang bagus.

Sam (Shaheizy Sam) adalah seorang pengurus tahap pertengahan di sebuah syarikat, yang ghairah bercinta dengan rakan sekerjanya Lisa (Lisa Surihani). Tetapi percintaan mereka menimbulkan rasa cemburu dikalangan pekerja-pekerja lain; ini termasuk pekerja baru Jeff (Syamsul Yusof) yang dulu menjadi teman lelaki Lisa, tapi yang lebih mengerikan ialah Haikal (Azad Jasmin) yang tidak stabil mentalnya dan sering mengganggu Lisa secara creepy stalker tahap dewa. Pada malam dimana Sam berniat untuk melamar Lisa, mereka berdua diculik dan dikurung didalam sebuah kilang lama serta diseksa dengan kejam... tetapi oleh siapa, dan untuk matlamat apa?

Poster sudah tertera ayat "dari pengarah termuda Malaysia", kerana Syafiq Yusof - anak kepada Yusof Haslam dan adik kepada Syamsul - berumur 18 tahun semasa membikinnya. Tak kira tua atau muda, yang jelas ialah filem ini merupakan sebuah debiu yang sungguh mengasyikkan. Separuh kedua cerita ini kuat dengan saspens Sam diburu dan didera oleh penculik misterinya, diolah dengan sudut kamera yang handal dan berkesan. Yang paling mengesankan ialah penggunaan elat kamera yang bermain-main dengan realiti, termasuk sebuah syot time-slice ala The Matrix yang cukup mengkagumkan. Ini sesuatu yang belum pernah saya lihat dalam filem tempatan, malah saya rasa belum pernah dicuba dalam filem tempatan. Keberanian Syafiq mencuba teknik-teknik ini patut dipuji, lebih-lebih lagi sedangkan beliau masih berusia remaja. Biar pembikin-pembikin filem lain yang lebih dua kali ganda usianya rasa malu sikit.

Namun demikian, kelemahan paling utama dalam filem tempatan ialah dalam penceritaan, dan filem ini tidak terlepas. Separuh keduanya bagus, tetapi separuh pertamanya menguji kesabaran. Satu adegan montaj berlagu yang menunjukkan percintaan Sam dan Lisa sudah mencukupi, tapi kita disajikan dengan dua. Dua-duanya pun cukup menimbulkan rasa geli dan mual, apatah lagi yang pertama berlaku dalam ofis. Tak hairanlah ramai rakan sekerja selalu mengumpat tentang mereka berdua; macam mana nak tumpukan perhatian pada kerja kalau mamat dan minah ni asyik berfoya-foya ditetengah pejabat? Tak profesional langsung! Tak sampai rasa simpati saya terhadap Sam dan Lisa jika begini kelakuan mereka. Apatah lagi kita dipaksa tunggu lama sebelum mereka diculik, dimana saat itulah cerita ini benar-benar bermula.

Plot twist-nya pula saya sudah boleh ramal, kerana ia kerap digunakan dalam filem genre ini. Namun saya terus menonton kerana saya ingin lihat bagaimana Syafiq, serta penulis skripnya Salleh Mokhti, mengolahnya. Malangnya, saya rasa sedikit hampa ketika ia disingkapkan. Ia tiada kena mengena dengan apa-apa yang diceritakan semasa awal filem; tambahan pula, ia memerlukan babak flashback panjang-panjang untuk menjelaskannya. (Disini dapat dilihat Shafimie Saedon sekali lagi melakonkan watak Shaheizy Sam semasa kecil. Macam dua-dua pelakon ni ada package deal.) Ada sebab mengapa teknik flashback ni tidak digalakkan dalam filem: kerana ia menoleh ke masa silam, sedangkan sebuah filem perlu sentiasa bergerak ke hadapan. Terutama filem thriller yang hidup mati atas momentum plotnya. Bagi SAM, momentum itu lesap ketika saat yang sepatutnya paling genting.

Tetapi rating 3-½ bintang sudah saya beri, bermaksud saya rasa filem ini cukup bagus. (TMBF kritik kerana sayang, dowh.) Persembahan Shaheizy Sam mantap dan cukup mencabar bakatnya (tak seperti dalam 8 Jam); beliau tahu bila perlu over-the-top dan bila perlu berlakon secara lebih halus. Chemistry antara beliau dan Lisa Surihani juga cukup menyerlah. Azad Jasmin juga memberi kesan dalam watak sampingannya, dan begitu juga Fimie Don walaupun hanya dalam babak flashback. Sebaliknya, Neelofa yang memainkan peranan Zura rakan serumah Lisa, lakonannya terlalu gedik sampai menjengkelkan. Syamsul Yusof pula... dia ada dalam filem ini.

Oleh kerana plot twist yang tidak wajar dipecah rahsia oleh pengulas filem yang berwibawa, saya akan bincangkannya di bebenang komen catatan ini. Saya sedia memberi pujian kepada filem tempatan yang berani mencuba benda yang baru, dan saya sedia memberi kritikan membina kepada filem dan pembikin filem yang saya hormati. Saudara Syafiq Yusof berhak diberi kehormatan, dek hasil kerja sulungnya yang sudah jauh melangkau filem-filem abangnya. Mungkin abangnyalah - yang juga tak segan mencuba benda baru - yang memberi iktibar. Diharap kedua-dua adik-beradik ini akan menunjuk ajar sesama mereka (dari apa yang saya lihat, adik patut lebih mengajar abang) dan menghasilkan lebih lagi filem-filem yang segar dan baru - apatah lagi filem-filem yang benar-benar hebat.

NEXT REVIEW: The Expendables 2
Expectations: doesn't look much better than the first

The Bourne pretender

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 12:25:00 +0000

The Bourne Legacy
My rating:

A Bourne movie with no Bourne in it - that is, no Matt Damon, and no Paul Greengrass either. Everything about that screams "cash-grab sequel", and a particularly blatant one considering the absent main character still has his name in the title. Yet I was willing to cut it some slack and be somewhat optimistic about The Bourne Legacy. Primarily because Tony Gilroy, the screenwriter who's been on board the franchise since the beginning - and whose vision for it was not fully realised - is taking over both writing and directing duties. Gilroy is a thriller writer with a list of solid credentials behind him, and his first directorial effort was one of 2007's best-received films, Michael Clayton (a film that I liked a lot too). So, unnecessary sequel or not, its pedigree looked pretty good - but honestly, I was hopeful about this one because I liked the previous trilogy so much, and I wouldn't have minded more of the same at all.

I didn't get it.

As Jason Bourne is about to expose Operations Treadstone and Blackbriar, hasty decisions need to be made regarding yet another of the CIA's black ops programs: Operation Outcome. Admiral Mark Turso (Stacy Keach) and Colonel Eric Byer (Edward Norton) decide to bury the entire thing, which means killing everyone involved. Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) is an Outcome operative on a training exercise in Alaska who survives the attempt on his life, as did Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz), a scientist who monitored the operatives. Cross seeks out Shearing in order to obtain his medication - the drugs that enhance his physical and mental abilities - as well as the means to wean himself off them. But as they go on the run together, they will have to avoid Byers' and Turso's relentless hunt as the CIA brings all its intelligence resources to bear against them.

I just said it. Didn't I just say it? Action movies that try to imitate the Bourne series always tend to miss the fundamental, intangible things that make it so good - and sadly, this now includes its own official fourth instalment. The pacing is off. The plot is tissue-thin. The characters are uninteresting. There is little tension or suspense. There isn't even a signature fight scene between ~~faux-Jason Bourne~~ Cross and the equally badass assassin who's the only character in the movie that can match him in badassery. Worst of all, it's dull.

I don't know how this could've come from Gilroy. He was the one who championed the plot of The Bourne Supremacy being about Bourne seeking atonement, which gave it the unexpected emotional depth that made it the best of the series. What is Aaron Cross after here? What is his entire motivation for this story? Pills. The little blue and green pills that apparently give him the chemically-enhanced mental and physical abilities to be a badass government assassin. (Which takes the series into vaguely science-fictional territory, another dubious decision of Gilroy's.) There's some stuff about how he was borderline mentally-handicapped before he joined Operation Outcome, and this is supposed to make us sympathise for him. But there's too little substance there to make it work. There's nothing emotionally compelling in this story of a guy who just wants his meds.

And Jeremy Renner is no replacement for Matt Damon. I like the guy, I liked him in The Avengers, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol and The Hurt Locker. But instead of a brainwashed, emotionless, humanity-less killing machine slowly regaining his humanity like Bourne, Cross seems perfectly normal. Renner even plays him with the subtle swagger that comes naturally to him, which works for some of his roles - but next to Damon's haunted, wounded protagonist, it's a jarring step down. Rachel Weisz's Dr. Shearing is little more than a damsel in distress; what little characterisation she has is about how ignorant she was as to what her research was really used for, which endears us to her not at all. Ed Norton and Stacy Keach do nothing but bark orders in their high-tech control room, lacking the personality of the series' previous villains - the pathetic desperation of Brian Cox's Ward Abbott or the oily pompusness of David Strathairn's Noah Vosen.

The latter of which actually makes an appearance here - as does other franchise mainstays Pamela Landy (Joan Allen), Dr. Albert Hirsch (Albert Finney), Guardian reporter Simon Ross (Paddy Considine) and CIA Director Ezra Kramer (Scott Glenn). Which are Gilroy's attempts at continuity tie-backs to the previous trilogy, as is the fact that it's set almost concurrently with the events of The Bourne Ultimatum. It doesn't work; their appearances are perfunctory and superfluous, and viewers new to the franchise would just be wondering who they are and what they're there for. It just doesn't feel like a Bourne movie. The plot business in between action scenes is dull and tiresome; Cross and Shearing trudge from plot point A to plot point B, while Byer and Turso laboriously follow their footsteps. Where are the action scenes? There's a good long first act in which Cross and another Outcome operative (played by Oscar Isaac) warily circle each other in an isolated Alaskan cabin, and it couldn't even give us a good fight scene between the two?

I'll say it again: it doesn't feel like a Bourne movie. Gilroy's vision to continue the franchise is fundamentally misconceived. (There was Treadstone, and Blackbriar, and hey look, here's another unethical government assassin program that needs to be covered up by eliminating everyone involved! It's like the CIA just goes through a dozen of these a year, don't they?) If it weren't for Bourne's name in the title, it'd be a reasonably slick - yet still somewhat anodyne - Hollywood spy action thriller. But as a bona fide official new entry in the series, it's a huge disappointment. Because once again, how the hell can you think of making a Bourne movie without a signature hand-to-hand fight scene? Aiyoo, Tony Gilroy, what laa??

NEXT REVIEW: SAM
Expectations: amboi, psychological thriller, beraninyaaaa

Bourne to be classics

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sat, 25 Aug 2012 13:57:00 +0000

The first three Bourne films is one of my favourite film series, but I've never actually seen all three back-to-back - in fact, I may have not even rewatched any of them from start to finish. Mostly I just watch clips of its action sequences; each one has at least one signature hand-to-hand fight scene and one car chase scene. And most of them are terrific action sequences, among the best of the entire action film genre - which is why, as an action film aficionado, I like this series so much. But partly also why I like it is that it is, in my book, one of the most consistently good movie series ever. Unlike most trilogies, there's not a single disappointing entry, and certainly not any one that feels like a major letdown from its predecessors. Which is a pretty rare accomplishment - but since Hollywood just can't leave well enough alone, there's now a fourth instalment to potentially spoil that record. So before we review that, let's take a look back at what was previously known as the Bourne Trilogy (and will probably still be known as the Bourne Trilogy with Matt Damon In It.)

The Bourne Identity (2002)
My rating:

Perhaps the most notable thing about the first of the series is that it turned out as good as it is. It underwent a troubled production, with reshoots and script rewrites that took it over budget and delayed its initial release. This is undoubtedly why director Doug Liman was removed from (or quit) the series - which, given his replacement in Paul Greengrass, was likely for the better. Still, Liman helmed the film that started it all, and his vision of a smart, realistic spy action film survives despite the studio interference. In 2002, the Pierce Brosnan era of James Bond films was winding down with Die Another Day, one of the cheesiest and most over-the-top in the long-running series - and that same year, the Vin Diesel-starring xXx tried to be the "extreme attitude" version of Bond. Compared to those two, The Bourne Identity felt like a breath of fresh air.

In particular, the fight scene between Bourne and Castel, the first of the CIA assassins sent to kill our amnesiac hero. It's short and brutal and I unreservedly love it; it's perhaps the first time I've ever seen a fight between two combatants who are trained not to fight, but to kill. A great many action movies made in the succeeding years owe a debt to this one scene. Aside from it, there's a fun little car chase (that would be eclipsed by Greengrass' work in the sequels) and a tense cat-and-mouse hunt through a rural countryside (with Clive Owen!). Still, nothing beats that early fight scene; certainly nothing in the climax, which feels curiously anti-climactic, perhaps a casualty of the bickering between Liman and Universal Pictures. It also doesn't feel as consistent tonally as the later Greengrass-helmed entries; at times, there are glimpses of a light-heartedness that seems incongruous with its two sequels.

But that may be due to the romance between Jason Bourne and Marie Kreutz, played by Franka Potente. It's the only film in the series in which Bourne isn't alone and hunted for the majority of the running time, and thus it's the only one in which he gets to make an emotional connection with another person. Their romance works, largely due to both actors; Potente is appealing, and Damon ever only allows a hint of a genuine smile when he's talking to her. But what Damon's performance is most notable for is turning him into a terrifically effective action hero. Back then, no one thought he had that in him at all - and while he proved up to the physical requirements by doing most of his own stunts, his tightly-controlled acting also helped create an indelible character in the tormented, deceptively deadly Bourne. As a thinking person's action movie, it succeeds handily, and did it it many ways that we had never seen before.

The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
My rating

A new director, a new visual and narrative style, and a bona fide classic film franchise is Bourne (hee). The Bourne Identity was a respectable success, if a little more critically than financially, but The Bourne Supremacy ramps up all its predecessor's strengths and improves on the flaws. The signature hand-to-hand fight scene is every bit as brutal and bloody. The car chase features a lot more vehicular carnage and makes the one from the first film look lame (which it isn't; it's just that this one is so much more thrilling). Where the pace of the previous one felt conventional, with expositionary and character-building scenes interspersed between action setpieces, this one is gripping and propulsive from start to finish. If there's one weakness, it's that the plot is almost too hard to follow. There's no easy audience surrogate character like Marie; Bourne is practically as much an enigma as anyone else, in a story full of practiced deception and hidden agendas.

Of course, Greengrass' direction doesn't make it any easier either. But I'll defend his much-maligned shaky-cam style anytime; there is a right way and a wrong way to do it, and Greengrass knows how to do it right. His most well-known previous credit, the faux-documentary Bloody Sunday, made him an unusual choice for a big-budget Hollywood actioner, but it proved to be an inspired one. Unlike the imitators, his style of filming action scenes isn't haphazard and mindlessly chaotic; he chooses his shots, angles and cuts very, very deliberately. He plays scrupulously fair in showing you exactly what you need to figure out what's going on, and you can figure it out if you're attentive enough. And you can then immerse yourself in the immensely thrilling sense of immediacy and urgency that it creates, and that just so happens to be terrifically well-suited to a spy action thriller.

But what makes this film perhaps the best in the series - and yes, I do think it's the best in the series - is the emotional journey that Bourne undertakes. Credit for this goes to screenwriter Tony Gilroy, who took the previous entry's happy ending and completely shits over it - but in so, gives Jason Bourne a motive that we've never seen in an action hero before. People still make the mistake that the movie is all about his revenge; it's not, not at all. It's about his need to know the truth of who he was and what he did, and why the girl he loved had to pay the price for his sins. It isn't till almost the very end that this is revealed, but upon subsequent viewings, it's there in Damon's remarkably subtle performance. Bourne is never truly angry or vicious throughout - just frustrated by his memory loss and haunted by his guilt. And it culminates in a quietly poignant scene that's the last thing you'd expect in a spy action thriller. For doing what it does tremendously well, and daring to be even more... yes, I think this is the one that'll stand out as the best in the franchise.

The Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
My rating:

I remember being pretty pumped for this movie, to the point where I forked out good dough for Gold Class seats. It was worth it. The early scene set at London's Waterloo Station is a bravura sequence of crackerjack tension, in which Bourne tries to herd a hapless journalist out of a gauntlet of CIA assassins, demonstrating our hero's quick thinking and street smarts in addition to his already-known badassery. This third entry greatly extends the role of Nicky Parsons, a character who had been on the fringes of the previous two; Julia Stiles is an always welcome presence and makes a good match with Damon. (Although it's never very clear why she would help Bourne - seems like Stockholm Syndrome more than anything else.) Once again we get one terrific fight scene and one terrific car chase scene; the latter especially is the most bone-jarring (and expensive) one yet. And as a conclusion to the trilogy, it does a nice job of calling back to scenes from the previous films, and even reinterprets the final scene from The Bourne Supremacy in a clever way.

So why the lower rating? Because what's lost is the emotional depth of its immediate predecessor. This time, Bourne is on a quest to discover the truth of his past as a man-made killing machine, which is a little less compelling than a man driven to atone for his past sins out of mourning for his lost love. There are small references to the grief he still feels for Marie, but they don't stand out amidst the railroad plot. Which is what this movie is almost entirely - a bullet train of an action-thriller that dashes breathlessly from one plot point to another. The Bourne Supremacy was that too, until the scene with Neski's daughter changed everything. This one doesn't. What it has is when Bourne returns to the research centre where Operation Treadstone began, where he first started becoming what he is now - and frankly, it feels a bit of a letdown. It feels like the whole movie should've been leading up to something more revelatory, more surprising.

It feels much more like a Greengrass film, less of a Gilroy one. Gilroy's emphasis on Bourne's emotional journey is replaced by Greengrass' political leanings, seen in how he villainises the CIA as running a black ops unit that seems to spend as much time killing civilians who threaten to expose them as they do stopping actual terrorist threats. (Gilroy's screenplay draft was reportedly completely unused, and Scott Z. Burns and George Nolfi were doing emergency rewrites in the midst of shooting.) And it's also telling that of all the heartless CIA suits in the series, the only two with a conscience are women. Still, the white-knuckle tension and intelligent, realistic take on modern spy action are present and accounted for, making this a worthy entry and conclusion to the series. There's sure as hell no drop in quality in the action scenes, which, let's face it, is what we come to these movies for.

-----

I mentioned this earlier, but it bears repeating and elaborating on: the Bourne series is notable as much for how influential it is as how good it is. The fight scenes in particular; if The Bourne Identity's fight was fresh and unique at the time, since then there've been an embarrassment of riches in terms of quick, brutal and realistic (well, more realistic) fight scenes. But often, that's the only thing the other movies managed to imitate successfully. The unrelenting pace, the grittily real tone, the scrupulous respect for the audience's intelligence - these more intangible things are still unparalleled. So yeah, as this post title indicates, the Bourne Trilogy (with Matt Damon In It) are bona fide modern film classics in my book. They sit at the pinnacles of their genre. Anyone who doesn't like 'em, you can pretty much write them off as someone who just doesn't get action movies. (Yes, such people exist.)

Namewee needs to work on his impulse control

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 19 Aug 2012 17:04:00 +0000

Hantu Gangster
My rating:

My respect for Namewee took a plunge after his anti-Lynas music video. I have no wish for a potentially hazardous industrial plant with dodgy safety standards on our shores, but I thought that video was hateful. It was full of nothing but virulently racist invective against Australians, for no other reason than that Lynas is an Australian corporation. It clearly did not occur to Namewee that many Malaysians may have Australian friends, and his video would have utterly embarrassed both of them. Which is why I was eager to watch his latest movie. I liked his last, and I wanted to see what he does next. I've gone to bat for him before and defended him against those who think he's a vulgar and shameless opportunist. I would like to think he's more than that.

I think he is. But he is also, in many ways, his own worst enemy.

Te Sai (Namewee) is a petty criminal, ne'er-do-well and single father to his perpetually disappointed 12-year-old son Chee Meng (Tee Jing Chen). But he's the one whom the ghosts of three recently-murdered gangland bosses, Pak Nasir (Dato' Jalaluddin Hassan), Uncle Arulmugam (Dato' David Arumugam) and Uncle Ah Hua (Charlie Loke), seek out to avenge their murders. Their sons and new leaders of the gangs - weak-willed Parut (Taiyuddin Bakar), thuggish loan shark Seelan (Abu Bakar Siddiq) and debauched drug dealer Ah Bao (Fa Chai Bao) - have forgotten the bonds of brotherhood that their fathers forged decades ago, and are on the verge of a race war. Unbeknownst to all three is the fact that the devious Ewan (Farid Kamil), who ordered the hit on their fathers, is deliberately stoking racial tensions in his bid to take control of all three gangs. To stop Ewan and restore harmony, there could not be an unlikelier hero than Te Sai - although if he succeeds, he might win the heart of the lovely Jameela (Diana Danielle), his son's schoolteacher and also the daughter of Pak Nasir.

Dear Namewee. Here is a list of things in your movie that are not funny:

- Te Sai's expletive of choice, "Kuihkochi".
- Attempting Japanese dialogue when the extent of your knowledge of Japanese comes from JAV.
- The fact that Arulmugam is never without a bottle in his hand. Dude. Beh hao ar.
- The musical number that the three gangs suddenly launch into to hoodwink the police.
- "Guaaaaang Zhou." (Unless this is a reference to something I'm unfamiliar with.)
- Te Sai getting hamsap with Jameela.
- "Christopher".
- Anything to do with Ah Bao's four perpetually-shirtless henchmen.
- Especially the one with the killer penis. Yes.
- And the one who seems to really really enjoy anal stimulation.
- Seriously, any time you think of doing a dirty joke... don't. Just don't.

The majority of these are unfunny because they are, quite frankly, distasteful. Those that aren't are silly and lazy - which isn't to say that the distasteful jokes aren't also lazy attempts at getting laughs just by putting something stupid up on screen. Broad humour - which seems to be the only kind of humour that local films know how to employ - doesn't have to insult the audience's intelligence. One only has to look at the films of the Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker heyday (Airplane!, Top Secret!, The Naked Gun) for examples of jokes that are silly on the surface, but in fact rely a great deal on the audience being smart enough to get them. I mention this because I am greatly hoping that Namewee does a little homework and learns from his betters before making his next movie.

Because the fact is, he's got a lot going for him. Despite Certain Quarters trying to paint him as a Chinese chauvinist, he managed to rope several popular Malay actors into his film, aside from many of the same non-Malay celebrities who previously appeared in Nasi Lemak 2.0. He discovered a bona fide child prodigy in Tee Jing Chen; he even managed to score a cameo from Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir no less. He's done a canny job of getting investors for his films, which he repaid with quite shameless product placement shots. He's daring enough to poke fun at the Polis DiRaja Malaysia, in a joke that I couldn't believe he got past the censors. And of course, he has his fanbase in the Chinese-speaking segment of the population, who supported him through his last movie and will certainly make up the bulk of the box-office for this one. But there is also his deep, abiding - and thoroughly sincere - love of the multi-cultural mix that is unique to Malaysia and only Malaysia.

Oh, it's in this movie alright, and in spades. There are few tributes to 1Malaysia as effective as the flashback sequence chronicling how the three gang bosses (played in their youths by Noh Hujan, Reshmonu and Dennis Lau) met, became fast friends, and went on to become the most honourable, most fashionably-dressed, and overall awesomest gang leaders in Klang. (Well, except for how the Indian is always drinking.) We even see how they weather the events of May 1969, in a scene that has a lot to teach a certain other local production about how to depict that particular historical event. Beyond the annoyingly tasteless comedy, Namewee is a true patriot; the one message he wants to convey, above all else, is that Malaysia is only Malaysia if it's made up of Malays, Chinese and Indians. Love him or hate him, you can't deny him this - and you'd be ignorant and judgemental if you did.

So it's a shame that his most noble instincts are always brought low by his basest. I once called him less than circumspect, but I think I was far too kind; he's bloody reckless. Dude just doesn't think before he executes his ideas, whether it's in a viral video or a feature film. Hantu Gangster's screenplay bears the mark of having been hashed out in about a day, then never once being rewritten or revised or looked over to see if maybe this scene or that joke could be better played another way. (He's banking a lot on the audience's suspension of disbelief with his ridiculously romanticised portrayal of gangsters. And by movie's end, when everyone is one big happy family again, he seems to have forgotten that Seelan is still a violent criminal and Ah Bao is still a drug dealer.) Everything in here feels like a first thought, just as everything Namewee does seems like pure unguarded impulse without the benefit of a voice of discretion.

Which, again, is a shame, because his talents are also undeniable. As dumb as the jokes can be, there is at least one bit where I laughed out loud: a perfectly-timed rendition of "Negaraku." Contrast the hilarity of that moment to a later one, when our same national anthem is used as ironic counterpoint to a tense, ominous scene. Hantu Gangster is not a bad movie; there's some pretty good filmmaking in here, and it loses out to Nasi Lemak 2.0 only for being less of a purely feel-good experience. But if Namewee is gonna keep making films, he really really needs to work harder at it. Study other comedy filmmakers. (Hence, Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker.) Learn how to build something more than a paper-thin plot. Spend more time on effective storytelling rather than comic setpieces. And most of all, start asking yourself, "Does this work? Is this good? Or is there a better way?" In fact, as I mentioned earlier - when it comes to anything that could be gross or risqué, ignore your instincts. When it comes to your sense of social satire, or your vision of what Malaysia is and should be... those instincts, you can trust.

NEXT REVIEW: The Bourne Legacy
Expectations: no Paul Greengrass or Matt Damon - but hey, Tony Gilroy?...

We remember it just fine on our own

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Thu, 16 Aug 2012 12:38:00 +0000

Total Recall (2012)
My rating:

TMBF has of course seen the original 1990 Total Recall, directed by Paul Verhoeven and starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. It stands out from Schwarzenegger's '80s-and-early-'90s run of action movies for two things: Verhoeven's unique - and at times, uniquely grotesque - visions of a science-fictional future, and its mind- and reality-bending plot based on Philip K. Dick's short story "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale." It was a popular enough, and recent enough, film that one could not but wonder just why anyone would want to remake it - but then again, remember what TMBF said about criticising a movie for being unnecessary. And indeed, there were early reports of how Len Wiseman's remake would not repeat the Mars storyline, and that it would take more inspiration from Dick's story than the 1990 film. The trailer also looked good, showcasing a fresh an eye-catching look that's certainly different from Verhoeven's.

But the surface is all that's different. In the fundamental ways, this is as much a rehash as it is a remake.

In a future where most of the world has been rendered inhabitable due to global chemical wars, the Earth's population is confined to the United Federation of Britain and the Colony (what was once Australia) - and the haves clearly live in the former while the have-nots are confined to the latter. Travel between the two areas is only possible via the Fall, a massive elevator shaft that runs through the Earth's core. Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell) is an ordinary factory worker who has been having disturbing recurring dreams, and - despite the admonishments of his wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) and his friend Harry (Bokeem Woodbine) - visits Rekall, a shady establishment that implants artificial memories, to satisfy what seems like his fantasy of being a secret agent. Suddenly he is hunted by the police, his own wife tries to kill him, and the mystery woman from his dreams (Jessica Biel) shows up to help him. Quaid realises that he may indeed be a double agent, working for the Colony's resistance and its leader Matthias (Bill Nighy) against the UFB's dictator Chancellor Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston), and that his very identity may be false.

There's no doubt that Wiseman, along with his screenwriters Mark Bomback, James Vanderbilt and Kurt Wimmer, are fans of the original film. And it's quite clear that they enjoyed putting in as many little references and callbacks to that film as they could. There's a triple-breasted prostitute; there's a bug that Quaid painfully extracts out of his body; there's a security checkpoint that Quaid tries to get past with the aid of futuristic disguising technology; there's an attempt by the bad guys to convince Quaid none of it is real, that's given away by a timely secretion of a bodily fluid. (It's, um, not as dirty as it sounds.) All this plus the basic plot that is essentially identical, substituting only the deprivation of air to the colourfully mutated citizens of Mars with the Fall as symbol of oppression of the Colony's downtrodden slum-dwellers. There's even a bit where an arm gets ripped off by an elevator, only - this being PG-13 - it's a robot's and not Michael Ironside's.

But in effect, none of these are as fun as Wiseman seem to think they are. All they do is remind us that it's all been done before. Again and again, the movie keeps telling us "hey, remember this thing from the original movie? Betcha do! And hey, remember this thing? And this?" Yes, we remember, but if we wanted to watch 'em again we could just pick up the first film on DVD. We would much rather see something new, which is what I believe - correct me if I'm wrong - most people want when they purchase a current cinema ticket.

To be fair, the best parts are those that are new and different from its 1990 predecessor. For one, the Blade Runner-inspired visual design of the Colony, looking very much like a Hong Kong or Tokyo tenement city of the future with its hodge-podge of apartments stacked chaotically atop each other. It looks cool enough that it doesn't even seem like such a bad place to live. We see less of how the other half lives in the UFB, but they use magnetically-levitated cars on a kilometres-high multi-level highway system there, and it looks pretty cool too - especially when we get a good ol' car chase sequence in them. The entire first half of the movie is one long chase sequence, and if Wiseman's good at one thing it's crafting action scenes. Especially when they employ the best of circa 2012 special effects; design-wise and technical-wise, it all looks great.

And then the second half slows way the hell down, getting interminably mired in its not-particularly-interesting plot details. I've previously decried the cliché of the dystopian sci-fi action film in which the hero fights the tyrannical villain but first meets the rag-tag resistance and ends up getting them all killed. Well, it turns out the original Total Recall was one of the first to employ that trope. And it turns out the new Total Recall simply regurgitates it. Bryan Cranston as aforementioned tyrannical villain gets just one scene to do some villainous scenery-chewing, and it isn't nearly enough. Bill Nighy as the aforementioned resistance's leader gets just one scene period and doesn't even hide the fact that he's just phoning it in. (And Kuato was so much more cool.) Wasting the talents of two such charismatic character actors is just one more example of how lacking in real imagination and creativity this movie is.

But the kids'll probably enjoy it. If you've never seen the original movie and don't know a thing about it, if your age falls below the 22-year interval between the two films, you'll most likely like this just fine. It's a competent and largely unobjectionable big-budget Hollywood timewaster, and I can't imagine anyone being sorely disappointed by it. Except that aside from time, it also wastes a fascinating science fiction premise that had already been turned into a big loud action movie once before. Is it too much to expect that a remake - especially one that claims to have went back to the original Dick source material - take it somewhere different? Is it too much to expect, say, a deeply mind-f**king psychological thriller instead, which is what instantly came to mind when I thought "hmm, how should a Total Recall remake justify its existence?" I guess it is.

NEXT REVIEW: Hantu Gangster
Expectations: gee, Namewee sure ain't an easy guy to defend

A hero rises, and a story ends

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Mon, 13 Aug 2012 03:47:00 +0000

The Dark Knight Rises
My rating:

I'm sure my readers are quite tired of hearing excuses for my tardiness by now. I had watched The Dark Knight Rises on Saturday the 21st (of July), just two days before it officially opened in cinemas, hoping I'd get my review up early for once. After that viewing, I decided I needed to see it again; I found the picture at GSC 1Utama to be somewhat distractingly dim, and thought it the fault of a run-down projector. It was over a week before I got the chance to watch it again, this time at GSC Tropicana Mall, and it was the same. Seems it's due to the overly-bright Malay subtitles on the Digital 2D print that washes out the rest of the picture. Feh and fiddlesticks, but I couldn't watch the new Batman movie on anything other than Digital 2D. I think I may have become spoiled by the extra crispness and sharpness of the format now; I shudder to think what a normal analog-projected movie would look like to me now.

Oh, and the movie? The movie... is not as good as its 5-star immediate predecessor. But it is still very good.

Eight years after the death of Harvey Dent, crime in Gotham City has almost been eradicated. But the Batman has not been seen since, and Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) has become a virtual shut-in. A burglary on Wayne Manor by a professional thief named Selina Kyle (Anne Hathaway) gets Bruce intrigued enough to start investigating, causing concern for Alfred (Michael Caine) who fears his latent death wish may lead him to suit up as Batman again. But Bruce may not have a choice. A shadowy figure known as Bane (Tom Hardy) is gathering an army of fanatics in the sewers of Gotham, and Commissioner Jim Gordon (Gary Oldman) barely survives an encounter with them. A young police officer named John Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) - who has already sussed out Bruce's secret alter ego on his own - seeks his help. Wayne Enterprises CEO Lucius Fox (Morgan Freeman) tries his best to hold the family fortune together in the wake of a disastrous clean energy reactor that Bruce invested billions into - a passion project of board member Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) who is trying to get close to Bruce. And all the while, Bane's apocalyptic plans for Gotham City continue unabated - and the aged and weakened Batman may not be his match.

There are two main things I want to say in this review. The first goes something like this: The Dark Knight Rises is not as good as The Dark Knight. It is noticeably flawed in more ways, and the flaws more noticeable, than that film, which is itself not entirely flawless. But that does not make it a bad film. What with the online chatter consisting of comments like "It really annoyed me when etc. etc.", "I couldn't believe Nolan decided to etc. etc.", or "That mind-bogglingly stupid part where etc. etc. etc.", you'd think this movie is a total bust. And if you honestly disliked it, I can't really argue. But there's so much Nolan, Jonathan Nolan and David Goyer did right that the detractors are completely overlooking in their fervour to nitpick the little things they did wrong. This is not Prometheus in which the plot holes are reflective of lazy filmmaking that undermines the entire film. This is a highly ambitious endeavour (in many ways, more so than even Prometheus), and its flaws are those of overreaching its grasp rather than ineptness.

It is not as unrelentingly gripping as The Dark Knight; there are distinct dips and troughs in its pacing, and it feels slow at times. It is not as tightly-written; it attempts to juggle too many characters and subplots and does not do justice to all of them, e.g. the part Blake plays in the climax. As good as Anne Hathaway is as Catwoman - and she is good enough to put paid to her many detractors, even before the movie came out - the character is also largely peripheral. Certain parts strain disbelief, e.g. the infamously hellish prison in an unnamed country that operates under no apparent governing authority, and does not seem all that unpleasant to boot. In fact, I felt that that entire prison sequence is the weakest part of the film, and not just because the resolution of it is even more disbelief-straining. It's largely because, in telling a story of how Batman suffers a terrible defeat and then painfully recovers from it (adapted from the Knightfall comicbook storyline), the plot tries to accomplish too much within a traditional three-act screenplay structure that isn't quite suited to that kind of story.

But once again, that's just how daring and ambitious this film is. And more often than not, it succeeds at what it dares for. Where The Dark Knight evoked the post-911 fear of terrorism, The Dark Knight Rises uncannily mirrors the class resentments and wealth inequalities that gave rise to the Occupy movement. (Uncanny, because the Nolans and Goyer had been writing their story since before the movement even began.) And yet, the uprising of the common people against the wealthy and powerful is led by the villains, their revolutionary rhetoric clearly stated as Bane's ruse to destroy the very Gothamites he pretends to lead. Once again, Nolan straddles that fine line of appropriating social and political issues without taking sides, creating a story that is thrillingly relevant. But it's by no means short of traditional thrills either. The two Batman/Bane face-offs, Tom Hardy's fearsome performance, the all-action finale, the new Bat flying vehicle, getting to see more of the Batpod's oh so cool double-axis wheels... there's plenty here that's just straight up comicbook superhero action, and it's terrifically well done.

A lot of people also dislike the film for being not entirely faithful with the comicbook Batman. Which brings me to the second point I want to make: no, it isn't entirely faithful. Anyone familiar with the character will likely find something slightly bothersome about his portrayal here (for me, it's the fact that Batman has been retired all this while, which means his career lasted all of two years). But Nolan isn't out to slavishly adapt the comicbooks. He's as good as reinventing the character wholesale, in the same way as DC might reboot Batman and retell his origin in a limited series. That hadn't really become clear till this third instalment of his trilogy - in which Bruce Wayne's story ends, definitively. Comicbook superheroes can never end. Certainly not one as timelessly popular - and timelessly profit-making - as Batman. There will always be another issue next month, even if it's a new storyline and new direction with a new writer-artist team. But what Nolan has done here is bring a final, unequivocal conclusion to the story he started in Batman Begins. The Bruce Wayne in the comics may go on forever. This one, in these movies, won't.

And why can't he? Why, in fact, can't Nolan reinvent and reinterpret Batman the way he sees fit? Dozens of comic creators, from Frank Miller with Batman: Year One to Geoff Johns and Gary Frank with the recent Batman: Earth One, have put their own spin on the origins of the character; why can't Nolan? So Batman never teams up with Robin. So Bruce Wayne was Batman for only two years before an eight-year hiatus that ends with one last adventure. So there's no Dick Grayson or Jason Todd or Tim Drake. (Or Riddler, or Penguin.) I've decried Hollywood's lack of faith in the comic properties they try to adapt before, but who could possibly accuse these three films of not respecting Batman? I think what Nolan has accomplished here - created a mature, intelligent, tremendously well-realized cinematic portrayal of Batman that's as good as the absolute best comic stories - qualifies him to take the liberties he took.

And it behooves us to give him his dues for it. Yes, it's not as good as The Dark Knight, and by a fair margin. But it is a fine film on its own, and even better as a conclusion to what will now be known as Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy. The execs at Warner Brothers have a truly unenviable task ahead in deciding where to take the franchise next, but the trilogy ends in as wonderfully open-ended a manner as anyone could expect. A Batman fan could walk out of the cinema dreaming of how to continue this story, in this Gotham City and with these surviving characters who are bound to have adventures yet ahead of them. (And I can still dream of my casting of Natalie Portman as Harley Quinn.) Which is what the finest stories always do: leave us wanting more, and stimulate our imagination to satisfy that desire - awakening in us the delicious possibilities of story. The Dark Knight Trilogy has ended, we shall never see its like again, and the future is uncertain for Batman and any other DC superhero movie. But for now, I'll be content to simply appreciate what Nolan has left us - the highs, the lows, and the dreams.

NEXT REVIEW: Total Recall (2012)
Expectations: the trailers looked good, but the reviews...

The Dark Knight revisited

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sat, 28 Jul 2012 00:39:00 +0000

By the time you read this, you will probably have seen The Dark Knight Rises - and by the time I post this, I will definitely have seen it. I'd meant to finish this post before it was released, and when I first started writing it, I was feeling pretty pumped for the movie. The Dark Knight is my choice for greatest comicbook superhero movie of all time, and I'll say it upfront: it's a 5-starrer for me. So hell to the yeah, its sequel and conclusion to Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy is a film I am hugely anticipating, in a year that has already seen a pretty great The Avengers, a disappointing Prometheus, and will bring The Hobbit and the new James Bond movie Skyfall in coming months. So here's my Retro Review of the first two in the trilogy - but I'll say it upfront, I could not possibly do a better job than ComicsAlliance's excellent and exhaustively in-depth commentary on both of them. Seriously, those are required reading for any Bat-fan, and I shall have to strive mightily to say anything about these movies that Chris Sims, David Uzumeri and Andy Khouri did not cover already.

Batman Begins (2005)
My rating:

I remember being somewhat underwhelmed by this movie when I first saw it - probably because I saw it on an IMAX dome screen. Which, I believe, is a particular kind of IMAX screen that I can attest is far from the best way to watch a movie, particularly action movies. (Yes, I know Christopher Nolan is a pioneer in shooting his movies in the IMAX format. That only started from The Dark Knight onwards, and again, not for dome screens.) Despite that, I knew I was watching something good. Batman Begins made its initial impression by being a complete tonal 180 from Joel Schumacher's, and even Tim Burton's, treatments of the classic DC superhero - a film that takes the Batman mythology entirely seriously, and creates a world in which a man who dresses up as a bat to fight crime on the streets is entirely believable, and a story of such can take itself entirely seriously. This film is Exhibit A in my theory that the most important thing for a comicbook superhero film to get right is tone.

It is also first and foremost an origin story - which, incidentally, the 1989 Batman was not. Burton's first movie started with Bruce Wayne having already become Batman, and the formative murder of his parents childhood told through flashbacks. Batman Begins also employs a flashback-heavy, non-linear structure (at least in its first half) - but the present-day sequences starts with Bruce in a Chinese prison, slumming it in a rather vague and aimless attempt to "understand the criminal underworld." That is until he is introduced to Ducard, Ra's Al Ghul and the League of Shadows, their philosophy, not to mention their kickass ninja training - which is only one of many things that set him on his destiny. Where the film succeeds more than anything else is as an exploration of Bruce Wayne's psychology, and how his motivations and inspirations for becoming Batman are far more complex than merely a childhood tragedy. And Nolan's and David S. Goyer's screenplay is just as satisfyingly intelligent, emotionally and thematically.

It is certainly more successful as a character study than as an action movie. Oh don't get me wrong, there are plenty of action scenes. It's a full hour in before Batman makes his fully-costumed entrance, but before then the pace is propelled by some deliberately terse editing (the thing that noticed most on this rewatch). The new Batmobile, a.k.a. the Tumbler, is way cool; hang the naysayers, I can no longer imagine Batman operating any vehicle that has fins or wings or is anything other than ruthlessly utilitarian. But Nolan has always been criticised for being terrible at filming fight scenes, and this one has a lot more hand-to-hand fights than The Dark Knight - and yes, they're all messy and dull. Also, there's something about Jim Gordon driving the Tumbler that doesn't sit right with me; I think it undercuts Batman's mystique. And finally, the big evil villainous plan that Batman must foil at the end strains the credibility - and credulity - that Nolan had been so carefully building up throughout the film.

But although it's a movie that didn't grab me the first time, it is one which greatly rewards rewatching. It treats a comicbook superhero with more respect, intelligence and depth than ever before, not to mention the finest cast ever in a comicbook superhero movie. Christian Bale and Michael Caine get all the credit, but the other thing I just noticed most is Cillian Murphy's deliciously creepy, just-ever-so-slightly-unhinged Dr. Jonathan Crane a.k.a. the Scarecrow. Yes, the sole exception to the otherwise fantastic acting is Katie Holmes, although more because she was out of her depth than actively bad; she does get one great scene when she learns Bruce intended to murder Joe Chill. And the A-list cast is just part of the overall top-notch filmmaking on display here. (Wally Pfister's cinematography, man.) I still wish it was a more viscerally exciting film - and I would've probably liked it more if it weren't for that damn IMAX dome screen - but as a reboot of the cinematic Batman, this is probably as good as anyone could expect.

The Dark Knight (2008)
My rating:

I'm slightly ashamed to admit that when I first watched the 1989 Batman, I found it genuinely scary. Slightly ashamed because, as time and Nolan has proven, that movie was actually quite campy and not at all a "dark and serious" portrayal of Batman that people thought it was. I chalk it up to it being my first introduction to Burton's macabre style; also, 13-year-old TMBF was probably just a wimpy little kid. I was reminded of that experience watching The Dark Knight as a grown man and functioning adult. This movie was practically as terrifying as a horror movie. I left the cinema shaken and disturbed, knowing that I had watched a great film but not at all keen on watching it again anytime soon. I did rewatch it for this Retro Review of course, and of course on rewatch it could no longer deliver that same sheer gut-wrenching terror. But as an amazingly, nail-bitingly tense and powerful film, it can still bring to mind how harrowing that first time was.

And a great deal of it was due to the late Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker. For all the praise that it's gotten, there isn't a thing overrated about it; everything from his hideously slipshod makeup, to his vocal delivery of his lines, to his habit of licking his lips, to even the way he walks, goes a long way toward creating an absolutely terrifying villain that very nearly turns a comicbook action movie into a horror film. But it was the screenplay, written by Nolan along with his brother Jonathan this time (Goyer gets a story credit), that started the journey. The brilliantly twisty opening bank heist scene - and later on, the pencil trick, oh God the pencil trick - establish what an implacable force of nihilistic chaos he is. Always several steps ahead of Gordon and even Batman, who are near-helpless most of the time to counter him; even when he's been captured, beating and torturing him does no good, and killing him would only mean he wins. He's damn near undefeatable.

Of course, the Nolans find a way to defeat him in the end, and let me go on record saying that the finale with the two ferries was brilliant. The entire film was brilliant, both as a relentless action thriller (making up for the pacing problems with Batman Begins, and how) and a dense, weighty, tightly-written story that juggles multiple themes and character arcs and even flirting with timely social and political issues. I won't delve into them here; there are other places on the net you can go for that. (Again, I recommend ComicsAlliance's excellent five-part review.) But to make a poignant character study and an incisive political satire within the bounds of a comicbook superhero movie is ballsy beyond belief - and that its political themes mesh so well with Batman is ingenious beyond belief. The fact that both sides of the U.S.'s left-wing/right-wing divide went on to claim the film as a champion for their particular viewpoints only goes to show how well it works as a mirror to the fears of post-911 American (and world) society.

But above all, it is an amazingly effective film that had me riveted from practically the first minute. The Tumbler/Batpod chase, a new contender for best car chase scene of all time. The shocking and, to me, completely unexpected death of Rachel Dawes. The bravura performance of Aaron Eckhart, unfairly overlooked in the wake of the (rightful) acclaim given to Ledger. Its depiction of an entire city gripped in terror by the machinations of a single madman. I can still vividly recall how I felt watching it, and in particular how I felt after watching it - shaken, disturbed, emotionally and physically exhausted ('cos of how tensed-up my body had been for 2-½ hours), and speechlessly awed. It is an improvement in almost every way over Batman Begins (Maggie Gyllenhaal should've played Rachel from the beginning), which was already a fresh and fascinating new take on Batman. This one takes it to a level never before seen in a comicbook superhero movie, and may never be seen again.

-----

Yes, I know it's taken me ages to write this, just as it's taken me almost as long to write my The Dark Knight Rises review; it's hard for me to wrap this up without including my thoughts on the trilogy's concluding chapter in here. But what's clear is that with two movies alone, Nolan has elevated the genre to the level of not just great Batman movies, but great movies period that are also Batman movies. The label of "great movies that happen to have Batman in them" are also bandied about, but it implies that Batman is a secondary element - or that Nolan is not a true Batman fan and merely used the character as an ~~excuse~~ vehicle to make his own crime thriller films. I'll have no truck with that kind of fanboy carping. What Nolan has done is not just to adapt existing Batman comics (even if Batman Begins and The Dark Knight drew inspiration from classic stories such as Batman: Year One, The Long Halloween and The Killing Joke), but to reinvent and reinterpret them - as comics often do - to tell wholly new Batman stories. Or to be precise, a single wholly new Batman story, in a trilogy of films. So yeah, let's get down to The Dark Knight Rises already.

1 jam 22 minit yang tidak berbaloi ditonton

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sat, 21 Jul 2012 12:41:00 +0000

8 Jam
My rating:

Sebelum filem ini bermula, panggung wayang menayangkan tidak kurang dari empat trailer filem-filem Metrowealth akan datang. Satu dimana Zul Suphian ingat dia boleh jadi pelawak, satu dimana Aeril Zafrel terpaksa cari makan dengan melakonkan filem MIG, satu cerita Islamik ala filem-filem 1 bintang Syurga Cinta dan Aku Masih Dara, dan satu filem aksi yang memaparkan cara pengendalian senjata api yang amat salah. Tiada satupun yang menarik minat saya hendak menontonnya. (Okeylah, PE3 mungkin ada potensi sikiiiit.) Filem 8 Jam ini adalah filem Melayu terakhir setakat ini yang saya rasa hendak tonton, kerana trailernya seakan-akan filem Merantau Warrior atau Ong Bak versi tempatan. TMBF pun curiga jika negara kita boleh menjayakan filem aksi seni beladiri yang setanding dengan filem-filem tersebut.

Samada negara kita boleh atau tidak, belum tentu. Yang pasti ialah Ahmad Idham langsung tak boleh.

Alang (Shaheizy Sam) seorang banduan hukuman mati yang bakal dijatuhkan hukumannya tak lama lagi, atas kesalahan membunuh. Sementara menunggu hukuman, dia menceritakan kisah hidupnya kepada Inspektor Akhiruddin (Eizlan Yusof), bermula dari zaman kanak-kanak (lakonan Fimie Don) ketika ibunya (Lydiawati) dibunuh oleh seorang along (Chew Kin Wah). Ketika di rumah anak yatim, Alang bertemu dan jatuh hati dengan seorang gadis bernama Julia (lakonan Erynne Erynna ketika kecil, Yana Samsudin ketika dewasa) - tetapi ketika masih remaja lagi, Julia dibawa pergi oleh mak saudaranya dan putus hubungan dengan Alang. Apabila dewasa, Alang bekerja sebagai peniaga pasar borong, tiba-tiba bertemu kembali dengan Julia. Mereka hidup berpasangan dan merancang untuk berkahwin, tetapi kebahagiaan mereka diancam oleh samseng dan gengster yang bermaharajalela di kawasan lorong gelap tempat tinggal mereka.

Adalah mustahil bagi saya mengulas filem ini tanpa membincang babak akhirnya, jadi terpaksa saya menge-spoil-kannya di sini: orang yang dibunuh oleh Alang, yang menyebabkannya dipenjarakan dan dihukum mati, ialah Julia. Kekasihnya Julia, cinta sejatinya dari permulaan cerita ini sampai akhir. Keputusan Ahmad Idham dan penulis skrip Tommy CT Lor untuk mengakhiri filem ini sebegini telah merosakkan cerita ini. Mungkin seorang pembikin filem yang benar-benar mahir boleh menjadikan ia sebuah filem yang berkesan; cerita tragis dimana watak utama akhirnya dijahanamkan oleh kelemahan keperibadiannya. Mungkin itu yang disasarkan oleh Ahmad Idham dan Lor - tetapi langsung tidak kena.

Kerana sepanjang cerita ini, kita diundang untuk memihak kepada Alang. Setiap peristiwa hidupnya bertujuan untuk membuat kita terasa simpati terhadapnya; kita melihatnya sebagai watak yang mulia dalam dunia yang keji. Terutamanya dalam babak-babak aksi dimana dia melawan kuncu-kuncu geng yang jahat sejahat-jahatnya mereka. Inikan filem aksi, sudah tentu penonton akan memandang tinggi wira aksi! Habis kenapa akhirnya dia membunuh seorang gadis yang tidak bersalah? Atas sebab gadis itu sebenarnya sudah bertunang, dan ingin pulang ke kampung untuk memutuskan pertunangannya agar cintanya dengan Alang boleh disempurnakan? Okey, saya boleh lihat beberapa kiasan di sepanjang jalan ceritanya bahawa Alang tidak boleh mengawal perasaan marah, dan mungkin ini suatu kelemahan manusia yang boleh disimpatikan. Tetapi akhirnya, dia bunuh Julia bukan kerana marah, tapi kerana perasaan cemburu dan menganggap Julia sebagai harta yang tidak boleh dimiliki orang lain. Wira kepala hotak engkau!

Tapi bagaimana pula dengan babak-babak aksi seperti yang diwar-warkan dalam trailer? Pendapat saya, itu pun lemah. Walaupun menggunakan khidmat pengarah aksi serta pelagak ngeri dari Thailand yang pernah terlibat dalam filem-filem Tony Jaa, namun bila diimpot ke Malaysia je jadi hampeh. Koreografi lawannya tidak imaginatif. Aksi ngerinya tidak mengujakan. Merantau Warrior ada mamat terjah buluh masa tengah lompat dari bumbung, kau ada apa? Arahan Ahmad Idham, sudut kamera dan penyuntingan juga tidak berkesan dalam membina keghairahan. Antara adegan aksinya termasuk satu babak ketika Alang mengejar seorang penyeluk saku yang juga pakar parkour (suatu kemahiran yang memang tak boleh cari makan, jadi kenalah jadi penyeluk saku kan?) yang asyik bertunggang dan berkuang tak tentu pasal. Tapi hakikatnya, filem ini lebih banyak drama dari aksi. Drama yang boring giler. Jangkamasa tak sampai 1-½ jam, tapi terasa panjang macam tajuknya.

Saya ramal filem inilah yang akan menjatuhkan saham Shaheizy Sam. Beliau telah banyak dipuji atas bakat lakonannya, dan juga berjaya menarik penonton hingga pecah panggung sejak filem Adnan Sempit lagi. Tapi disini, persembahannya tidak bagus. Lakonannya terlalu over, terutamanya dalam babak di penjara dimana beliau asyik menggigil dan menggeletar sehingga tahap lucu. Rebiu-rebiu lain mungkin memujinya (sebab dah biasa kot), tapi saya dengar dengan telinga sendiri penonton-penonton ketawa ketika adegan-adegan dramatiknya. Yana Samsudin pula, saya tak tahu kenapa beliau sanggup mengambil watak love interest yang perlukan hero untuk menyelamatkannya, sedangkan beliau sendiri telah membuktikan kebolehannya sebagai wirawati aksi. Jika industri filem kita lebih maju, tentu ada banyak lagi filem-filem dimana Yana boleh menunjukkan bakatnya yang sebenar, daripada terpaksa melakonkan watak yang tidak setimpal dengan martabatnya.

Tetapi industri kita memang tidak maju. Sebab mengapa saya kata saham Sam bakal jatuh ialah kerana Zizan Razak nampaknya sudah menjadi bintang meletup yang baru. Setiap filemnya yang saya tonton, telatahnya pasti dapat membangkitkan ketawa, sepertimana Sam dahulu berjaya menghiburkan penonton tapi gagal kali ini. Jika Zizan kini telah mengganti Sam, ini bermaksud Sam hanya beraja selama 2 tahun. Begitu singkatnya karier seorang seniman dalam masyarakat kita ini; masyarakat yang tidak pentingkan seni, yang telah menghasilkan pembikin-pembikin filem yang juga tidak pentingkan seni. Kita lihat nanti kemana arah kerjaya Sam nanti; mungkin dia dapat membuktikan ramalan saya salah dengan filem baru yang bakal pecah panggung. Tapi yang pasti ialah, jika kualiti filem tempatan masih di tahap filem 8 Jam ini, TMBF dah tak larat nak tonton lagi.

NEXT REVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises
Expectations: oooohhh yeah

It's less amazing the second time round

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 16:01:00 +0000

The Amazing Spider-Man
My rating:

As good as it was, Batman Begins - the first of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy - heralded an unhealthy trend in Hollywood blockbuster filmmaking: that of the reboot. I say "unhealthy" because I like continuity. After Batman & Robin, precisely no one wanted Joel Schumacher to make another sequel - and after having gone through Michael Keaton, Val Kilmer and George Clooney, precisely no one was begrudging Christian Bale his turn as a more serious, realistic Batman. But after Batman Begins' success, studios quickly learned that they could recast and reinvent and reboot lucrative film franchises as and when they liked; as long as the property is popular enough, the movie - any movie - would always make money. The Amazing Spider-Man, Sony/Columbia's reboot of the Spider-Man franchise from Raimi's 2002-2004-2007 trilogy, has already made a respectable (if not outstanding) figure at the box-office, so it looks like the lesson still applies.

Which is sad, because it still doesn't prove that Spider-Man ever needed to be rebooted.

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) was only four years old when his parents disappeared under mysterious circumstances, leaving him in the care of his Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) and Aunt May (Sally Field). Years later, as a high school senior, he finds his father's old briefcase and some scientific papers hidden inside, leading him to investigate his father's former partner, Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans). Connors is researching cross-species genetics in order to discover a means to regenerate lost limbs - specifically, his disabled left arm. It is at Connors' lab at the Oscorp corporation that Peter gets bitten by the fateful spider that gives him his spider-like superpowers - although this time, his web shooters are mechanical devices based on an Oscorp-developed "biocable." But as he continues exploring these powers - in between romancing Connors' head intern and schoolmate Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), whose police chief father George Stacy (Denis Leary) is no fan of masked vigilantes - Uncle Ben is shot and killed by the criminal whom Peter could have earlier stopped, but didn't. And whilst Peter struggles to deal with his guilt, Connors is also facing pressure from his corporate superior, Dr. Ratha (Irrfan Khan) to deliver results - pressure that leads him to test his reptile DNA-based formula on himself.

See, the thing about Batman Begins (and I really hope I'm not talking too much about it now; I'm planning a Retro Review soon) is that it was different enough from the series it was rebooting to justify its existence. This movie does not. The all-too-familiar parts of Peter Parker's origin story feel like a rehash, and engenders a feeling of restlessness and impatience to just get it over with already. And the new stuff aren't so much departures as they are omissions; no Harry Osborne, no J. Jonah Jameson, and no "with great power comes great responsibility." I once ranted that it's unfair to deem a film "unnecessary", but I now have to issue a mea culpa. The Amazing Spider-Man is unnecessary, because we've seen this story before - even if it is well-made, and even if Spider-Man is still fun to watch.

Andrew Garfield is already being praised in some circles as being a major improvement over Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker. I'm not seeing it, although I thought Garfield did fine. (Mostly I'm just surprised there's so much dislike for Maguire's version. Since when?) The movie doesn't belabour Peter's downtroddenness; he's just an average gawky and awkward teenage boy with occasional hints of cockiness and arrogance. Garfield plays this well; this Peter Parker is perhaps a more well-rounded character than in Raimi's films, which again, tend to portray him as life's butt monkey. On the other hand, the simple purity of his character arc gets diluted here, to the point where Uncle Ben's death doesn't even seem like the catalyst for his dedication to a life of selflessness. He puts on the costume and the web shooters and goes out beating up criminals at night, primarily to find his uncle's killer, and somehow by and by decides to help people instead.

There's no avoiding comparing each cast member, since that's the most visible difference between the two versions. Martin Sheen has more personality than Cliff Robertson, but Sally Field seems wrong - although that may be due to the script giving her far too little screentime, reducing her to a non-entity after Uncle Ben's death. Emma Stone is one of the biggest improvements; where Kirsten Dunst's Mary Jane Watson was dull (and extremely ill-served by her scripts), Stone's Gwen Stacy is irresistibly cute, has great chemistry with Garfield, and lets her exercise her considerable comedy chops. Unfortunately, the villain is no improvement at all. Rhys Ifans creates gravitas and sympathy for Dr. Connors, but when he becomes the Lizard, things get murky and his characterisation gets slapdash. How does a guy go from wanting to regenerate his disabled arm to trying to turn all of New York into mutated lizard-monsters?

And that brings us to the world in which these characters live in. The one Raimi created was clearly a comicbook world; the characters were deliberately campy, the emotions deliberately heightened, the drama deliberately corny, and the audience's disbelief deliberately suspended. It's a fine balance to walk - and Spider-Man 3 in particular took a nosedive off that line - but it was still a clear and consistent artistic vision. Director Marc Webb doesn't quite succeed in creating his own new vision. The movie seems to be taking a more serious, realistic tone, up until people start turning into giant lizards. I've said before that tone is the most important thing for a comicbook superhero movie to get right, and while Webb doesn't do anything wrong per se, the fantastical elements still don't quite seem to gel with the more grounded ones. (To be honest, it feels like the studio re-edited Webb's cut.)

But besides a much improved female lead character, the best thing it's got going for it are its action scenes - a critical factor for a superhero movie. While there's nothing here that beats the inventiveness of the subway train fight in Spider-Man 2, this Spider-Man looks, and moves, a lot better than the first Spider-Man at least. The action choreography is also terrific, and the way Spider-Man uses his web shooters as close-quarters-combat weapons is very cool. Most of all, the web-slinging scenes are beautifully done, and bring to cinematic life the pure kinetic thrill of swinging across city streets like Spider-Man. I don't know how many shots were live-action and how many were CGI, but the seams are invisible; it all looks real, and not like an obvious CGI figure. If there's any reason at all to reboot the franchise, it would be this: to take advantage of current special effects technology and make a Spider-Man that lives up to every comicbook-reading kid's imagination.

Then again, Raimi's Spider-Man 4 could've done the exact same thing. And that would have the huge advantage of being a fresh new chapter in Peter Parker's life, which, goddammit, is what we want to see: something new. According to reports, the (inevitable) sequels to this reboot would focus more on the mystery of Peter's parents and why they disappeared so suddenly. Which, okay, that's something we haven't seen before, although it's not exactly an iconic part of the character's story and the hints of it that we see here don't really have anyone salivating in anticipation for more. (Which is precisely also the effect of the post-credits scene. It's completely meaningless. Learn from Marvel, guys!) But for better or worse, that's what we're gonna get, and that's what we're getting right now: a Spider-Man movie that is pretty good, pretty fun, pretty enjoyable, but just isn't what anybody really wanted.

NEXT REVIEW: 8 Jam
Expectations: tiru Merantau Warrior sekarang ya, Ahmad Idham?

The Spider-Man that was

noreply@blogger.com (TMBF) — Sun, 08 Jul 2012 14:36:00 +0000

Yeah, let's do this! It's been ages since I last posted a Retro Review, even though I enjoy doing them. And a retrospective look at the Sam Raimi Spider-Man trilogy is in order, since a reboot of the entire franchise has just come our way. The initial news of which was greeted with, in our uniquely Malaysian vernacular, "aiyoo, whaffor?" Indeed, it seems like a very short five years between Spider-Man 3 and this new The Amazing Spider-Man; it took seven years after the much-(and justly-)maligned Batman & Robin before the much better-received (and just plain better) Batman Begins came out. Thing is, despite the fan backlash towards the last installment, no one really thought the Spider-Man series went off the rails the way the Batman franchise did under Joel Schumacher. All its elements - from director to every cast member - seemed solid enough to deliver a much better Spider-Man 4, which was what we were all hoping for. Yet here we are, with a total reboot and a completely new creative vision, with all the uncertainty that brings. So before we check out what Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone hath wrought, let's see what baggage they have to contend with.

Spider-Man (2002)
My rating:

This is the only one I watched in cinemas, and I wasn't that hot about it at the time. I went with a friend who's a Spider-Man fanboy and he was pretty ecstatic about it (then again, he doesn't have the greatest taste in movies - sorry Ray), but I just thought it was alright. My opinion hasn't changed much watching it 10 years later. In fact, the opening scenes seemed terribly contrived in making Peter Parker the world's most put-upon high school student, beleaguered by everything from evil jock bullies to a school bus driver who drives past him for no good reason. But thing is, Raimi is going for a deliberate tonality here: a broad, purposefully corny approach that faithfully adapts the original Silver Age Spider-Man comics of the early 1960s, in all their wide-eyed earnestness and trademark Stan Lee bombast. It takes a bit of getting used to, which I eventually did - but those early high school scenes are still annoyingly on-the-nose.

It got better after Peter gets bitten by that famous ~~radioactive~~ genetically-engineered spider, and starts being a superhero movie. Watching him explore his newfound powers is fun, as are his initial exploits at superheroing; the circa 2002 CGI effects look a little cartoony when it comes to animating human figures, but there's a palpable sense of joy in the web-slinging and crime-busting. In between, there's the death of Uncle Ben, the tragic event that defines Peter's destiny - which didn't really affect me much. Much more effective are the Daily Bugle scenes with a pitch-perfect J. Jonah Jameson in J.K. Simmons, perhaps the entire series' greatest asset. Raimi's cornball tone works better at broad comedy than broad drama, and that includes the somewhat soppy romance between Peter and Mary Jane Watson. The romance factor is a big part of the film (as well as the other two), with MJ portrayed as the one great love of Peter's life. Yeah, and she goes through no less than three guys in one movie.

Kirsten Dunst gets flack for being the weakest member of the recurring cast; although she's not great, the fault lies more in how the character was written - needy, shallow, and ever the shrieking damsel in distress. Tobey Maguire fares better, and he earned quite a bit of acclaim for his performance - although I found him a little inconsistent. He, along with James Franco as Harry Osborn, seem like they don't quite get Raimi's precise tone, though both would improve in the next two movies. But the one actor who got it off the bat is Willem Dafoe, as a sneering, cackling, deliciously scenery-chewing Norman Osborne/Green Goblin. Now that's how you do a broad comicbook movie villain; I enjoyed him more than any other member of the cast (aside from Simmons). And I enjoyed this movie just fine, up to and including the fun superpowered action/fight scenes. But ten years ago, it didn't make me keen to watch its inevitable sequels - and which I didn't, not in cinemas. I only like it just a little bit more now.

Spider-Man 2 (2004)
My rating:

Widely regarded as the best of the trilogy, as agreed upon by fans, RottenTomatoes (93% approval, although the first film also garnered a respectable 89%) and even Roger Ebert (who gave it a perfect 4 stars over the first one's 2-½). I agree it's an improvement over its predecessor, but in subtle ways. The cornball dialogue remains, as does the cartoonishly heightened world it's set in; we have here a genius scientist working on a fantastic, world-changing piece of technology, and oh by the way, he also has this other fantastic, world-changing piece of technology lying around that he just uses to work on the first fantastic, world-changing piece of technology. The scene in which both are introduced would induce eye-rolls in most discerning viewers, if it weren't for the fact that what preceded it carefully laid the foundation for suspending your disbelief for it. Raimi is asking - nicely - that you just go with it, and most people did.

Because there are plenty of rewards in store once you do. The action scenes for one, including one of the best superpowered fight scenes ever filmed in live-action. Dr. Octopus is a marvellous work of character design and special effects, and never once do his mechanical arms not look real. And Alfred Molina's performance doesn't imitate Dafoe's, but matches him in essaying another pitch-perfect comicbook villain - one that engenders real sympathy and pathos. But it is in its portrayal of Peter Parker that this movie succeeds best as the definitive cinematic Spider-Man, capturing his angst, his dire financial straits, and his difficulties in balancing an ordinary life with his superheroing exploits. Spider-Man has always been hailed as the first costumed superhero to deal with ordinary true-to-life concerns in addition to fighting supervillains, and Spider-Man 2 captures it superbly.

Of course, the corniness and on-the-noseness is still there, as seen in a scene where Peter debates his life choices with a fantasy figure of Uncle Ben in what looks like a vision of heaven - and it isn't even a dream sequence. But the tone succeeds at endearing us to our hero rather than making us roll our eyes. Somewhat less successful is MJ who ends up the damsel in distress for Spidey to rescue again. Still, even when she spends the entire movie pining after Peter whilst engaged to another man, she comes off better than in the last one. (Can't blame a girl for moving on after the guy she gave her heart to turned her down.) The grand romance between Peter and MJ is another thing this sequel does well, and ends the film on an anticipatory note of big changes in both their lives. And yes, since this is the one that left me wanting more of Spidey, I'd definitely agree to putting it among the best superhero movies of all time.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)
My rating:

And this is the one that spoiled it all. Although, as you can probably tell from my rating, I don't think it's the trainwreck that everyone says it is - but before we get to the good parts, the bad parts are pretty bad. It starts off with Peter being popular and well-liked, in a relationship with MJ, and on top of the world for once - a nice development from the status quo of the first two movies. But this quickly turns into both of them becoming remarkably unlikable. Even before Peter starts strutting down the street like an idiot, he's already insensitive and inconsiderate of his girlfriend - who doesn't earn our sympathies either, being all whiny and petulant. (And who then sucks face with her ex. Seriously, can this woman ever stay faithful?) And here's the thing: this is all Raimi. It's all in the same vein with his broad, cornball tone. He can blame the studio for forcing Venom into the movie, but emo hair Peter, jazz-dancing Peter, and a Peter who flaunts a new girl in front of his recently-broken-up girlfriend - all the most hated parts of Spider-Man 3 - are definitely Raimi's ideas.

Of course, the inclusion of Venom is another huge problem - namely, there's too much going on. Bad enough that Flint Marko a.k.a. Sandman turns out to be Uncle Ben's real killer - an unwise retread of Peter's origin story, methinks - there's also the alien symbiote that at first infects our hero, then finds a more welcoming host in Peter's photographer rival, Eddie Brock, Jr. And while Raimi and his writers valiantly attempt to tie it all together, both Marko/Sandman and Brock/Venom are reduced to sadly underdeveloped characters and poorly-resolved subplots. (Despite Thomas Haden Church's and Topher Grace's performances; the series has never lacked for great casting.) The seams are stretched to breaking point when Brock just happens to be where Peter is while the latter is getting rid of his black costume, thus allowing it to jump from hero to villain; you know the plot is in trouble when it has to resort to such a wild coincidence. And that's not even mentioning the movie's third villain: Harry Osborne, Peter's best friend-turned New Goblin.

Which is actually one of the things it does well, largely because it's the third act of a storyline that had been building since the first movie. Their teamup in the climactic battle is fun, and the well-choreographed action scenes benefit from the series' biggest budget to date. (Unfortunately, MJ gets kidnapped by the villain yet again; seriously, can you guys ever find something else for her to do?) Which ends the movie on a not-entirely-unsatisfying note - hence 3 stars - but it's a movie that gets worse the more you think about it. The damage it does to the character of one of comics' most beloved superheroes is galling, as is the waste of one of his most popular villains from the '90s. Which Raimi, being a fan of the Silver Age Spider-Man, has no love for, and it shows; even Venom's design is a simple recolouring of Spidey's usual digs, and doesn't even look like the strikingly matte black costume from the comics. No, I didn't hate it, but I can understand all too well why the fans did.

-----

Despite fan disapproval, Spider-Man 3 is actually the most financially successful of the trilogy and Sony/Columbia's highest-grossing film to date. Which clearly indicates that the split between the studio and Raimi had to have been acrimonious; why would they fire him after he delivered such a huge hit? But fire him they did, and with him went Maguire and Dunst and therefore the entire franchise - or at least, this iteration of it. How successful Webb's reboot remains to be seen (and by the time you read this, I will already have seen it and be writing my review), but having seen the entire Raimi Spider-Man trilogy, it's definitely a shame that he wasn't allowed to keep helming the series. No matter how bad the last one was, I don't think any Spider-fan was angry enough to not give him another chance, or who wasn't eager to see his Spider-Man 4. But that's one for the Movies That Could've Been Awesome (But Never Got Made) list now.