Mat Rempits versus aliens

Attack the Block
My rating:




So I was quite pleased to find this movie on our local cinema schedules. I'd read this glowing review from io9, one of my favourite time-wasting sites, and I was quite pleased that Platinum Pictures Sdn Bhd (no, I've never heard of them either) had brought it to our shores. More power to them, I say! There are too many cool movies out there that never make it to local cinemas, both from Hollywood and elsewhere, and hearing about them on the internet just makes it all the more painful to learn that no distributor has the balls to bring them in - or worse, canceled their initial plans to do so. (Where the hell is Space Battleship Yamato, goddammit?!) So yes, I hope Platinum Pictures gets some good returns on Attack the Block, and I hope it encourages them to bring in even more obscure-but-possibly-really-good movies.

Ironic then, that I can't really recommend this one. It's just not as good as I'd hoped.

In a run-down housing estate in South London, nurse Sam (Jodie Whittaker) is robbed by a group of youths led by Moses (John Boyega) - and at the same time, a meteor crashes nearby, and a strange alien creature emerges from it. The gang, which also comprises Pest (Alex Esmail), Dennis (Franz Drameh), Jerome (Leeon Jones) and Biggz (Simon Howard), chase it and kill it, but it is only the precursor to even more meteor impacts - and the creatures that emerge this time are much bigger and more vicious. Muggers and muggee must join forces to fight off the alien invasion of their block, occasionally aided and hindered by the local residents - weed dealer Ron (Nick Frost), his regular customer Brewis (Luke Treadaway), 9-year-old wannabe toughs Probs (Sammy Williams) and Mayhem (Michael Ajao), as well as resident gangster Hi-Hatz (Jumayn Hunter) whom Moses inadvertently runs afoul of.

It's a pretty brilliant premise I gotta say, one in which the heroes' scrappy kickassity could well be matched by the filmmakers' own. But I'm sorry to say, somehow it just never came together for me. The characters were never interesting enough, the dialogue never funny enough, the plot never compelling enough, the action scenes never exciting enough, and the whole movie just never as much fun as it promised to be. I really was expecting more. But maybe it's just me, and maybe the premise alone is enough to satisfy most folks. Yes, it is definitely Mat Rempits vs. aliens in South London, and if that sounds at all intriguing to you, then maybe you'll like it.

I certainly like the way the plot plays out, with Sam and the gang learning to overcome their mutual suspicion of each other (most of which comes from Sam, and wholly justified at that), as well as a nicely redemptive character arc for Moses. There are also some genuinely funny lines, mostly from Pest and occasionally from badasses-to-be Probs and Mayhem. Seeing that the aliens are vicious maneaters complete with slavering jaws, there's more than one bloody death scene that makes it almost an action-horror hybrid (it certainly owes a great debt to James Cameron's Aliens). And you gotta admire writer-director Joe Cornish's can-do spirit, that impressed British filmmaking luminary Edgar Wright to get on board as executive producer.

Still, I can't help but feel that the execution of a terrific premise and an almost-as-good screenplay fell short of all that potential. It's partly because of Cornish's budget limitations. The alien design is pretty cool, being impenetrably jet-black with glowing fangs (anybody else reminded of Out of this World? Retro gaming FTW!), but we never quite get a good enough look at them to register them as a real threat. Nor do we ever get a satisfactory explanation as to the aliens' invasion plan (the one we do get being quite unsatisfactory). Also, Cornish's direction sometimes gets annoying, especially when he breaks out the shaky-cam that reduces his action scenes to a confusing mess - and more inexplicably, deep close-ups on his actors to the point where half their faces are out of frame. What is this, Lagenda Budak Setan?

And I think the acting has a lot to do with it too. John Boyega does a great badass scowl, but I would've liked to see a bit more dimension to Moses - perhaps a bit of vulnerability, especially we find out how old he really is. Characterization for the rest of the gang is also spotty, and except for Moses the protagonist and Pest the designated comic relief, I always found it a little hard to tell them apart (or to care much what happens to them). The real letdown in the acting department is Jodie Whittaker, who is just wooden. Being the only somewhat-normal person in the movie, she serves the purpose of the viewpoint character, who in a movie with freaky goings-on needs to be properly freaked out. Whittaker's choice to underplay her scenes does a lot to hurt the film's effectiveness.

But y'know, I take it back - I think I will recommend Attack the Block after all. I hate reviews that just say "you'll like this if this is the kind of thing you like" (*coughCinemaOnlinecough*), but a 3-star movie is one that I'm willing to concede may appeal more to others - especially if they, well, like this kind of thing. On the other hand, if you have had bad personal experiences with juvenile delinquents, it may colour your enjoyment of this film, so be duly warned. I like a good "versus aliens" movie as much as anyone, especially a fresh and original take on it - which this one certainly is - so if you do too, by all means check it out and reward Platinum Pictures' investment.

NEXT REVIEW: Rasuk
Expectations: ya Allah, S. Baldev Singh lagi

3 segi, 2 lelaki, 1 retard

3, 2, 1 Cinta
My rating:




Dari trailer and poster pun aku dah bengang dengan filem ni. Nisbah perempuan dengan lelaki ialah 37:1? Ini palsu sepalsu-palsunya. Jumlah penduduk perempuan dan lelaki di Malaysia adalah hampir sama je, dan sebenarnya lelaki ramai sket. (Dulu aku pernah dengar 9:1 la, 12:1 la - lagi membuktikan ia kelentong semata-mata.) Yang buat aku geram ialah, "factoid" ini sering digunakan sebagai justifikasi bagi lelaki yang sexist menganiaya kaum wanita, e.g. kes cerai, poligami, kahwin lari, ibu tunggal, dan lain-lain. Sebab diorang ingat banyak sangat perempuan, boleh pakaibuang dan cari yang baru. Dahlah filem Melayu sering dicemar gejala misoginisme, sekarang tengok filem ni pulak, aku dah sedia mengasah pisau menunggunya.

Okey, filem ni taklah misoginis sangat. Ia cuma filem yang bangang.

Sam (Diana Amir) seorang tomboy yang baru sahaja memasuki kolej baru. Dia menemui kawan lamanya Fariz (Pierre Andre), yang juga digelar "Ayam" kerana sudah empat kali mengulang kursusnya - dan Sam juga jatuh hati dengan Nazril (Farid Kamil), seorang pelajar yang merupakan jejaka idaman semua pelajar-pelajar perempuan di kolej. Hubungan Sam dengan keluarga tirinya juga dingin, walaupun ayah tiri (Mustapha Kamal) dan adik tiri bernama Mimi (Faith Zakie) sering cuba bermesra dengannya. Sam cuba sedaya upaya untuk menarik perhatian Nazril, tapi segala usahanya gagal - namun lama kelamaan, Nazril dan Sam mula berkenalan dengan lebih rapat. Tapi dalam pada itu, Farizlah yang sudah lama jatuh cinta dengan Sam.

Kebetulannya, ini adalah filem keempat berturut-turut yang saya tontoni dimana jalan ceritanya mencantumkan dua atau lebih filem lain. 3, 2, 1 Cinta meng-ripoff-kan filem komedi cinta remaja 10 Things I Hate About You serta Pretty in Pink, dan saya yakin pengarang (atau pengarang-pengarang) skripnya cukup kenal dengan kedua-dua filem Hollywood tersebut. Malangnya, saya juga yakin bahawa pengarahnya Azhari Zain tak pernah dengar pun dua filem itu. Watak dua adik-beradik, satu tomboy satu bimbo, diambil dari 10 Things; kisah gadis yang minat seorang jock tapi dicintai kawannya yang nerd pula datang dari Pretty in Pink. Kedua-dua premis ini diceritakan dengan bijak, matang dan menyayat hati dalam filem-filem asalnya - tapi olahan oleh Tuan Pengarah Azhari disini langsung tiada ciri-ciri itu.

Si Sam ni, yang nama sebenarnya Siti Aishah Mohamad - dia ni heroine ke? Kita harus simpatetik terhadap dia ke? Cara dia cuba mengorat Nazril adalah seperti seorang stalker yang psikotik. Babak ini macam filem Fatal Attraction versi komedi; aku menantikan kemunculan arnab peliharaan Nazril yang bakal kena rebus. Sam ni, tak sedar sama sekali betapa malu dibuat dirinya; dia ni bukan tomboy, dia ni gadis yang mengalami gangguan mental dan emosi yang serius. Tambahan pula, dia ada ayah tiri dan adik tiri yang penyayang dan bersabar, tapi dia langsung tak hormat mereka. Lebih-lebih lagi Fariz, penjuru ketiga dalam cinta tigasegi ini. Dari mula lagi dia cintakan Sam, tapi Sam seorang je yang tak nampak. Protip: sebuah cerita dimana watak mengambil 90 minit untuk menyedari sesuatu yang sudah jelas kepada audiens, bukannya cerita yang berkesan.

Tapi yang menjengkelkan bukan watak Sam ini, sebenarnya ialah Azhari. Beliau mengarah cerita ini seolah-olah niatnya ialah untuk memperli dan menyindir gadis tomboy, sepertimana yang berlaku kepada Sam dalam adegan yang sungguh kejam dan sadis. (Dua adegan pulak tu.) Inilah sifat misoginis yang memang ada dalam filem ini, tapi saya tak pasti samada ia sengaja atau Azhari cuma seorang yang bengap tentang komedi. Nazril seorang yang baik hati; walaupun dia dikelilingi peminat perempuan, tapi dia pentingkan pelajaran serta amat menyayangi adik-adik angkatnya. Tapi babak yang menjelaskan backstory-nya tiba-tiba mendatangkan nada tragis yang janggal dalam cerita yang selama ini komedi ringan.

Sebenarnya saya agak suka dengan skripnya (hasil dari Panel MIG yang infamous; seburuk-buruk mereka menulis, adakala berjaya juga), kebanyakannya kerana watak-watak yang baik hati dan mudah disenangi. (Yakni sesiapa yang bukan Sam.) Ini yang sepatutnya ditekankan dalam cerita ini; saya nak watak Mimi yang pada luarannya bimbo tapi ambil berat tentang kakak tirinya dibangunkan lebih lagi. (Tambahan pula, Faith Zakie amat cun.) Saya tak nak mengkritik barisan pelakon yang semuanya berbakat, khususnya Farid Kamil yang selama ini saya tak minat, tapi kali ini dia berjaya membawa watak yang tak douchebag macam peranannya yang biasa. Jelas sekali Tuan Pengarah Azhari yang menyuruh mereka semua berlakon secara over dan menjengkelkan.

Saya syaki filem ini dipengaruhi anasir-anasir yang ingin menyampaikan mesej agar gadis muda dicegah dari menjadi tomboy. Sebab mesej inilah filem 3, 2, 1 Cinta rosak, kerana ia sepatutnya kisah lelaki yang cintakan seorang perempuan bagi dirinya yang sebenar. Kisah cinta ini tidak menjadi, dan mesej anti-tomboynya pun tak bergigi, menjadikannya sebuah filem yang gagal sama sekali. Azhari dan Panel MIG memang tak mampu nak bikin 10 Things I Hate About You atau Pretty in Pink versi Melayu, sebab mereka tidak mempunyai kemahiran, keprihatinan dan kesensitifan yang perlu.

NEXT REVIEW: Attack the Block
Expectations: looking forward to it

In brightest day, in bitterest disappointment

Green Lantern
My rating:




TMBF is a DC fanboy. It's not like I've read a lot of their comics, barring the occasional tradepaperback collection of highly-acclaimed storylines (that I'll only purchase once their acclaim has been well-established, i.e. long after their initial publication). But I do hungrily devour news on the latest developments in the DC universe, more so than I do Marvel. It's partly because I find their principal superheroes so much more iconic; Superman for being the embodiment of altruistic good, Wonder Woman for being the principal feminist heroine, Batman for being the goddamn Batman, etc. Which is why I had such high hopes for Green Lantern; I have only a passing familiarity with the character from the comics, but I wanted to see more DC comics adaptations. I'd be much more excited about a unified Justice League movie continuity than I currently am for an Avengers one. I really wanted this movie to be good.

And that's what makes Green Lantern my sorest disappointment of the summer of 2011. Don't think there'll be another contender for that title.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a cocky test pilot in a contentious, yet romantically-charged, relationship with his boss Carol Ferris (Blake Lively), who runs her father's Air Force contractor company. Hal's life changes forever when an alien being named Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison) crashlands on Earth and gives him a Green Lantern ring - a ring that has chosen him to join the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic force of peacekeepers founded by an immortal race called the Guardians. The ring gives him the ability to create anything he can imagine, powered by his will. Summoned to their home planet of Oa, Hal undergoes rigourous training under Corps members Tomar Re (Geoffrey Rush) and Kilowog (Michael Clarke Duncan), as well as the scathing eye of Sinestro (Mark Strong), leader of the Corps. But there is trouble brewing on Earth as well. Xenobiologist Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) is summoned to examine Abin Sur's body, and during the autopsy he is "infected" by the creature that killed the alien - a being known as Parallax, the embodiment of fear, that has sworn to destroy the Guardians and the Corps.

Goddamit, I really wanted this movie to be good. Its trailers earned scathing comments from folks who thought the CGI looked dodgy, who hated Ryan Reynolds, or who just didn't get the concept of Green Lanterns. Through it all, I kept my hopes up. I think Reynolds is a better actor than people who only remember him from Van Wilder give him credit for (it also helps that he's a huge comics fanboy). And I always counted on the movie's secret weapon in Martin Campbell, who has always been a reliable director of stylish yet gritty action-thrillers; I thought he'd be a terrific choice to make a comicbook superhero movie. I don't know what went wrong along the way. Maybe it's because of the four credited screenwriters (and who knows how many uncredited rewrites and touch-ups), or maybe it's because some moron executive at Warner Brothers got final cut.

In any case, the final product simply never comes together as a movie. Its theme is of overcoming fear, which is what Hal must do - which is apparently why the ring chose him. It seems these billion-year-old Guardians and their greatest champion Sinestro are not aware that true courage comes not from the absence of fear, but from facing one's fears. This is new?? This is the deeply profound lesson that humanity has to teach an ancient immortal race and their badass band of warriors? This is the stuff of '80s-era Saturday morning cartoons, not a live-action adaptation - presumably meant for adults as well as kids - of a beloved comicbook. This is insultingly shallow for a genre whose bar has been set by Iron Man and Thor and X-Men: First Class, which, yes, are Marvel movies. Aiyoo, DC, what laa??

And because of that ridiculous bit of Humans Are Special, Hal's entire character arc just never works. Despite Reynolds' valiant attempts to avoid the fratboy doucheyness of Van Wilder, his character remains an unlikable moron. The screenplay seems to think introducing him in a scene in which he runs out on some floozy in his bed is supposed to make him charming. And that having him crash a multi-million dollar jetfighter because he happened to think of his dead father at the time is a good way to introduce his backstory. And that having him fight off a bunch of guys who are beating him up because he got them fired is supposed to make us sympathize with him. Then he spends the entire midsection whining about how the Corps training is too tough, that he's not cut out to be a Green Lantern, yet somehow they let him leave Oa while he still has the ring...

...oh God, this movie is a mess. The whole Hector Hammond subplot seems to have come from an entirely different movie, one in which he, Hal and Carol were apparently friends since childhood - and one in which he didn't get unceremoniously booted out in the late second act by the real villain. Angela Bassett shows up as Amanda Waller, a well-known minor DCU character, and the movie does absolutely nothing with her. Several scene transitions are awkward and jarring. All of which are evidence of boneheaded editing, but I don't know if Campbell - or the writers - can get off the hook just yet. The plot rips off bits from Top Gun, in Hal's aforementioned character arc, and from the original 1978 Superman, in several uncannily similar scenes. (Did his first big superheroic reveal have to occur at another helicopter crash?) All this points to a shameful paucity of imagination, as if the filmmakers saw "jet pilot-turned-superhero" and figured just mashing those two movies together ought to do.

But I'm giving it 2-½ stars. Which means it isn't all bad, and probably doesn't deserve its 26% RottenTomatoes rating. I don't think Reynolds was at all miscast, just miswritten. I'm probably the only reviewer who liked Blake Lively; I thought her chemistry with Reynolds was great. So was Mark Strong, who had the unenviable task of having to make a red-skinned, devil-eared, pencil-mustachioed character - named Sinestro - a good guy, and pulled it off. And so was Peter Sarsgaard, who actually found a real depth of humanity to a badly underwritten character. I was fine with its visual effects and design, even the glowing green bodysuit, and I thought the scenes featuring the ring constructs were quite effective at showcasing the uniqueness of Green Lantern's powers. (Although there really should've been more of 'em, a lot more.) And Campbell's direction comes through in the action scenes, all of which are nicely shot and well-paced.

So yes, it is merely a mediocre film, not a truly bad one - like some I could name. But when we've already seen so many great examples of how to translate comicbook superheroes to screen, Green Lantern's failures stick out like a sore thumb. And it's especially galling that it's DC's first big attempt to challenge Marvel's dominance in the movies, but only ended up proving that neither they nor Warner Brothers have the slightest clue how to handle some of the most iconic properties in modern pop culture. Sigh... the disappointment, it is oh. So. Bitter. If it is true that this film got butchered by the studio - and if DC and WB have any shits left to give - they'll re-release it with Campbell's original cut. They'd bloody well better. They owe it to us.

NEXT REVIEW: 3, 2, 1 Cinta
Expectations: 37:1 kepala hotak engkau

The '80s were super

Super 8
My rating:




TMBF is a born-and-bred child of the '80s, man. That ought to make me the prime target audience for Super 8, J.J. Abrams' homage to Steven Spielberg-directed (and -produced) films of that era. The '80s, man! That was a terrific decade for a young cinephile to grow up in, and Spielberg had a lot to do with it. His movies were the stuff of my childhood - Jaws (which I was terrified to watch at the time, owing to my younger self being a total pussy), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, The Goonies and probably a few more referenced in the movie that I can't place.

Most of which I also haven't watched since then. I wonder if I would've liked Super 8 better if I had.

It is the summer of 1979 in the small town of Lillian, Ohio. Four months after 13-year-old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney) lost his mother in a factory accident, his relationship with his widowed father Jack (Kyle Chandler), the town's deputy sherriff, is strained. But Joe has plans for the summer - helping his best friend Charles (Riley Griffiths) film his zombie movie on a Super 8 camera, along with their friends Carey (Ryan Lee), Martin (Gabriel Basso), and Preston (Zach Mills). Then Alice Dainard (Elle Fanning) joins the cast, and young Joe is instantly smitten - but Alice's father (Ron Eldard) is linked to Joe's mother's death, and both he and Jack forbid their friendship. However, everything changes when, during a nighttime film shoot at a railway stop, a passing train derails and crashes. The kids find out that their biology teacher Dr. Woodward (Glynn Turman) may have deliberately caused the crash, and that something the train was carrying has escaped - bringing the U.S. Air Force led by Colonel Nelec (Noah Emmerich) rolling into town.

Sigh... here we go again. I liked this movie. I like J.J. Abrams and every movie he's directed and produced so far; he makes smart and exceedingly well-crafted blockbuster films (and when he took on a source material that I've long been a fan of, the results were excellent). But Super 8 always made me feel like I should like it more than I actually did. Here's what I think: in trying to blend the abovementioned four Spielberg movies into one, Abrams lost sight of the fact that they are all very different movies. Jaws is an adult horror-thriller, and its approach of hiding the monster till the end served to amp up the terror. E.T. told a story of alien contact through the wondering eyes of a child, whereas Close Encounters showed a more mature and adult perspective towards the subject. And Goonies was a purely goofy kids' adventure, as well as a slightly older kid's perspective than E.T.

Thus, Super 8's tone often feels inconsistent. The monster attack scenes are pretty damn scary and intense, probably a little too much so for kids even of our protagonists' age. When the alien is finally revealed, its design recalls the Cloverfield monster and the Star Trek ice planet creature, i.e. utterly alien and terrifying - but the film wants to combine this with Spielberg's humanistic depiction of extra-terrestrial beings (though perhaps not his War of the Worlds ones). Some of the things the alien does are never explained, and this feels like a plothole. Joe, Charles, Alice and their friends are a fun bunch, what with Carey's pyromaniacal tendencies and Martin being a constant crybaby - but they don't get enough screentime or characterization to really make an impression. And then there is Joe and Jack grieving for Joe's dead mother, shared by Alice and her own difficult relationship with her father.

This is the subplot that really dominates the entire movie, making it a sombre coming-of-age drama that doesn't mesh well with the alien monster and the kids' adventure hijinks. It's also quite clumsily resolved in a scene rife with on-the-nose dialogue that I'm finding it hard to believe Abrams wrote. Ultimately, it's the Goonies-style light-hearted adventure-comedy element that seems the most incongruous with the film's largely serious and adult sensibility, which pains me to say as it's the one I most wanted to see more of. Probably because it's the one out of Super 8's inspirations that I'm most nostalgic for; movies about kids who are smarter, braver, and have stronger moral convictions than adults is what really makes me feel like a kid again. I sure wish I was like Joe when I was 13. (I also wish I knew a girl like Alice Dainard when I was 13.)

Which brings us to the acting, which benefits from a pair of terrific young performances. Joel Courtney is as self-assured as a veteran child actor, which is even more impressive considering this is his first time acting. And Elle Fanning is as gifted as her sister Dakota; she has an intensely emotional scene that she performs heartbreakingly well. The interactions between the adolescent protagonists are one of the film's true strengths, being entirely natural and realistic without being the least annoying or cloying. They were also pretty darn funny. Exactly why I wanted to see more of them, and why I would've been quite happy if this were just a virtual Goonies remake.

Incidentally, yes, The Goonies is the '80s Spielbergian movie I have most recently rewatched since its original release. Maybe I would've liked Super 8 more if I'd watched E.T. or Close Encounters more recently, or at least remembered more of them. Most of its glowing reviews have raved about the pitch-perfect recreation of an entire generation's cinematic memories, and there's no denying Abrams has succeeded at it - but despite being of that exact generation, I didn't really feel it enough. So maybe it's just me. I certainly can't find it in me to fault the movie too much, since it's still a great sci-fi summer blockbuster suffused with heart, soul, terror and wonder. We can never have too many of those.

NEXT REVIEW: Green Lantern
Expectations: oh dear

Malaysia's schlockmeister

KL Gangster
My rating:




Syamsul Yusof makes schlock. Which isn't a very complimentary label, but then again, his stuff isn't very good. There are movies that aim to be purely mindless entertainment and succeed with sheer craftsmanship and flair; Syamsul's films, on the other hand, are cheap, exploitative and junky. Hence, schlock. It's a sad statement on the local film industry that he won Best Director at last year's Festival Filem Malaysia - the local Oscars - solely for the (admittedly impressive, on a technical level) stuntwork on Evolusi KL Drift 2. Allah forbid a filmmaker who can actually tell a story, what more an original one, could win that accolade someday - or that local audiences, starved for the tiniest glimmers of quality filmmaking, could learn to reserve their praise for something that's more than mere schlock.

KL Gangster is probably Syamsul's best movie to date. Which isn't very complimentary, because it's still schlock.

Malek (Aaron Aziz) is fresh out of prison, after having done 5 years for armed robbery. His former partner in crime Ajib (Shoffi Jikan) is ready to offer him a place in his gang led by Dragon (Adam Corrie), but Malek would rather take up with small-time hoodlum Fadil (Zizan Raja Lawak) and lay low. He's got plenty of problems of his own; his mother (Ku Faridah) is destitute, his sister Zeti (Sheera Iskandar) is a skanky drug-dealing ho, and his brother Jai (Ady Putra) is another of Dragon's lieutenants, but loyal only to money. Malek used to work for King (Ridzuan Hashim), another gangland boss and Dragon's rival - but King's right hand man is his stepson Shark (Syamsul Yusof), who hates Malek with a passion. Tensions escalate between the two factions, exacerbated by Shark's growing hunger for power... and just when Malek thinks he's out, they all pull him back in.

Syamsul Yusof is a terrible filmic storyteller. Of all the dumb ways to start a movie, he chooses to have a voice-over that basically reads out the film's press synopsis, spelling out who's who and on whose side. Dude, do you really think the average Malaysian moviegoer is that stupid? We can learn these things just by watching the damn movie. But what makes Syamsul a schlockmeister is his penchant for ripping off other movies - and I do mean rip off, not pay homage to or reexamine with a fresh perspective. It's A Better Tomorrow meets SPL, with none of the first film's themes of honour and friendship, or the second's tragic irony, or either's emotional weight; just a vaguely similar premise and some clearly similar locations for the fight scenes. The subplots about Malek's sister and mum are superfluous, and nothing is resolved between him and Jai.

Syamsul Yusof has gotten better at writing dialogue (if he wrote these himself, that is). It is highly entertaining; everyone speaks in unashamed bahasa pasar rife with enough "lu"s and "gua"s and "kasi"s to make a BM highschool teacher quit her job in disgust. There's even plenty of authentic-sounding Malay gangland slang that fleshes out this comicbooky world of badass gangsters. Syamsul may suck at storytelling, but he's definitely penned some deliciously cheesy lines for his cast to chew through. (There are, as a matter of fact, English subtitles, but the only way to enjoy the dialogue is if you speak Malay.) If he has little interest in fleshing out Malek's familial issues - beyond a lazy attempt to paint him as "good" in contrast to all the other "bad" folks - he's clearly more keen on making an unashamedly macho action movie in which its almost all-male cast try to out-tough each other.

Syamsul Yusof is not a bad actor. He's not a particularly good one either, but a role like Shark only needs him to sneer, glower and yell, all of which he can do just fine. He stands out as a nicely hateable scenery-chewing villain, which does him credit as an actor at least - because as a director, he lets everyone chew scenery. Shoffi Jikan and Ady Putra are equally gonzo in their wild-eyed "intensity", and someone really should've told at least one of them to switch to decaf or something. The extras who play various unnamed lowlifes attempt the same macho posturing with embarrassing results. Zizan Raja Lawak was painfully unfunny, not so much for his acting as for the fact that his character is a total moron. And I'm quite disappointed for Aaron Aziz; for him, not in him, because he's a charismatic presence, but there's nothing in his role for a decent actor to get a handle on.

Syamsul Yusof is a pretty good stunt coordinator. KL Gangster delivers on its trailer's promise of ferocious action scenes; they're not gonna compete with Donnie Yen's choreography anytime soon, but they're nicely gritty and brutal. They would also be more effective if Syamsul didn't keep shaking his camera all the damn time. The cast seem to have trained quite well for their fight scenes, and if Syamsul could've just used a freakin' tripod to film them, they may have looked even better. But as I mentioned above, this film's depiction of gangland violence in the streets of KL is definitely more manhua than Michael Mann. These guys blow each other away with guns in broad daylight, in the middle of Petaling Street! And then there's Shark's ridiculous "tribal" tats, or Jai's penchant for substituting baby oil for a shirt. Still, this is the world the movie takes place in, and it can be cheesy fun if you can buy into it.

But ultimately, Syamsul Yusof simply doesn't care about things like realism, or plot cohesion, or characterization, or moral depth. All he cares about is that there's a punch-up every ten minutes, and that the acting is as over-the-top as possible, and that he gets to make his version of a Hong Kong triad action movie. And he certainly doesn't care about giving us a satisfying ending; the movie doesn't end, it stops, right after the last bad guy has been pounded into submission. And then the voice-over comes back on, and helpfully explains that all these wicked, horrible, no good, very bad criminals end up arrested by the excellent Royal Malaysian Police - off-screen, that is. Well done, Syamsul, you've managed to appease the Censorship Board. I'm sure our local film industry will give you another award for that.

NEXT REVIEW: Super 8
Expectations: none, and that's the way I want it - have nicely avoided spoilers so far

Prequel problems X-emplified

X-Men: First Class
My rating:




A quick primer on the previous X-Men films: X-Men's (2000) primary achievement was taking the concept of superpowered mutants seriously, but offset by a goofy plot involving a magical device that turns people into mutants. X2: X-Men United (2003) was a rare sequel that was better than its predecessor, raising both the global and personal stakes and coupling it with some terrific superheroic action. X-Men: The Last Stand (2006) was a disappointment; the story was a natural follow-up to what came before, but told in an uninspiring manner that lacked the previous two's emotional weight. X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) was just meh. I wanted to do Retro Reviews of them, but this'll have to do for a recap of the series so far, as we now examine this latest instalment - which happens to be a prequel.

Which suffers from the perennial problem that plagues all prequels: predictability.

It is 1962, the dawn of mutantkind. Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender) is hunting Nazi war criminals in a single-minded pursuit of Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), the man who killed his mother and awakened his powers of magnetism. Charles Xavier's (James Macavoy) theories of genetic mutation are gaining recognition, but he already has proof of them: his adopted sister, the blue-skinned shapeshifter Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), as well as his own telepathic powers. CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) uncovers a plot masterminded by Shaw to escalate the nuclear tensions between Russia and the U.S., as well as the existence of mutants - specifically, Emma Frost (January Jones), Azazel (Jason Flemyng) and Riptide (Álex González) - working for him. This leads her to seek out Charles' help, and when they cross paths with Erik, he too joins forces with them - for now. Together, Charles and Erik recruit more mutants - Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult), Angel (Zoë Kravitz), Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), Alex Summers/Havok (Lucas Till), and Darwin (Edi Gathegi) - in a bid to both combat Shaw and decide the fate of mutantkind.

This is gonna be another one of my seemingly-uncomplimentary 3-½ star reviews, and I'm really beginning to wonder why I write so many of 'em. Maybe it's because a 4-star movie earns raves all the way, and a 3-starrer is just about balanced in terms of what works and what doesn't. But a 3-½-star film is often just on the cusp of greatness, which just makes its flaws so much more frustrating. X-Men: First Class has been earning raves everywhere (with the notable exceptions of Roger Ebert and James Berardinelli), but I can't find it in me to fully agree with them. Yes, it's a solid entry in the X-Men franchise, and a necessary revitalization after the last two poorly-regarded movies. Yes, it's good summer blockbuster entertainment, delivering thrills and spectacle without demanding you leave your brain at the door. And I guess it's kinda fun spotting all the nods and references to both the previous films and the X-Men comics - but therein lies the problem.

Namely, that there's absolutely nothing in this movie that's going to surprise us. We already know Magneto is a holocaust survivor. We already know he and Charles Xavier will meet and become friends, only to break ranks over their philosophical differences and become enemies. We already know Mystique will join Erik and Beast will remain on Xavier's side. We already know Charles will become paralysed and confined to a wheelchair. And we already know that the Cuban Missile Crisis did not end with both the American and Soviet fleets destroyed by their own missiles. It would have been a gripping tale of betrayals and shifting alliances, if the outcome of it all wasn't a foregone conclusion. Even the superpowers just aren't as cool as they were before, simply because we've already seen magnetism, telepathy, shape-shifting, teleportation et al before.

And this extends to the central debate between Charles and Erik over the path mutants should take to survive. X-Men introduced the theme, X2 and The Last Stand escalated it - which leaves X-Men: First Class to just sort of spin its wheels in regards to the problem of how the world copes with mutants in their midst. If this is a true prequel to those previous films, this means Professor X, Magneto and the world has spent 40 years accomplishing nothing about the mutant problem. But if there's anything new this movie does with the theme, it's to turn our sympathies entirely towards Erik's ideology. When normal humans aren't trying to kill mutants, they're mocking them for being freaks, and the one CIA director (played by an underused Oliver Platt) who seems vaguely sympathetic wants to keep them in indentured servitude to the U.S. government. I don't remember the other three films being this blatantly anti-human; their bigotry really feels forced and contrived. We're given no reason to support, or even understand, Professor X's philosophy of peaceful co-existence.

It doesn't help either that Charles is a far less interesting character than Erik here. The former is a privileged rich kid barely aware - and dismissive - of his own sister's insecurities; the latter is a badass Nazi hunter out for revenge. I wonder if this was intentional, or if it's indicative of the storyline's weakness with characterization as a whole. None of the other mutants have any personality, with the exception of Mystique and Beast (and in Mystique's case, again, we already know how that's going to play out). One of Charles' recruits switches sides to Shaw for no apparent reason, then happily tries to kill the very people she earlier befriended. X-Men stories have always been ensemble pieces, and a good one knows how to give each minor character just enough characterization even as it necessarily focuses on one or two major protagonists. (Star Trek did this nicely.) This one culminates in a climax in which a bunch of them literally stand around doing nothing while the important characters duke it out.

Okay, okay, let me now talk about some of the movie's good parts. It's anchored by a pair of terrific performances, namely Michael Fassbender's and Kevin Bacon's. Erik's traumatic memories and volcanic rage - both at Shaw and at the mistreatment of mutantkind by humans - is forcefully portrayed by Fassbender, who is so confident in his screen presence that it's a wonder he's only now being recognised as a major star. And Bacon makes for a delicious villain, the kind so irredeemably evil and so smug and arrogant that his comeuppance is truly satisfying. There's a definite James Bondian vibe running through the movie, especially in the casual sexism (and sexiness) of the era and the Ken Adam-ish sets; I especially liked Shaw's submarine headquarters-cum-swinging bachelor pad. TMBF is an unabashed Bond fan, and I totally dug these; you can never have too many '60s-era Bond references, is what I say.

I don't know about Matthew Vaughn. I know everyone liked Kick-Ass, but I still haven't forgiven him for the hackjob he did on Neil Gaiman's Stardust. (Seriously, that movie botched the book soooo badly. Ask me about it sometime.) I may be biased against him, but I don't think he's that great a director, even though he keeps making big, ambitious comicbook adaptations and other geek-appeal movies. I don't think he's proven he has the intelligence to really deliver on the source materials he picks. So yeah, this is the second Vaughn film I'm giving 3-½ stars to, and this is my umpteenth 3-½ star review that sounds like I hated the movie. I didn't, really; I enjoyed it just fine. But the only way it's the best X-Men movie so far is if it's the first X-Men movie you've ever seen.

NEXT REVIEW: KL Gangster
Expectations: man, that is one noisy trailer

Skadoosh again

Kung Fu Panda 2
My rating:




Apologies for not doing a Retro Review of the original Kung Fu Panda from 2008. I had the DVD all ready, and in fact I rewatched it the night before I went to see this sequel, but other mundane matters intruded; and yes, I am aware I am already behind on the latest cinema releases. (Curse you, day job that pays my bills and puts food on my table!) Anyway, Kung Fu Panda was the first genuinely good DreamWorks Animation film since Shrek seven years prior, and represented a turning point for the studio that had, during those years, earned a reputation as Pixar's punching bag. A funny-talking-animal movie starring Jack Black as a panda that learns kung fu seemed so similar to the rest of DreamWorks' undistinguished, uninspiring output that it was truly surprising how good it actually turned out. The question now is, can they maintain that level of quality and not fall into the trap that befell the Shrek sequels?

Yes they can - even if they can no longer maintain the surprise.

The Dragon Warrior Po (Jack Black) is now the full-fledged protector of the Valley of Peace, friend of the Furious Five - Tigress (Angelina Jolie), Crane (David Cross), Mantis (Seth Rogen), Viper (Lucy Liu) and Monkey (Jackie Chan) - but still the son of noodle restaurateur Ping (James Hong). But even as his Master Shifu (Dustin Hoffman) exhorts him to learn how to achieve "inner peace", a new threat emerges. The peacock Lord Shen (Gary Oldman) has gathered an army of wolves, captained by his Wolf Boss (Danny McBride), with the goal of conquering all of China, and they have a deadly new weapon: gunpowder. Shen is aware of a prophecy, told to him by a soothsayer (Michelle Yeoh), of "a warrior of black and white" who is destined to defeat him, which of course refers to Po - and the history between them leads to disturbing flashbacks for Po that cause him to question his very identity.

I don't agree with the reviews that say Kung Fu Panda 2 is better than the original; I say it's about on par with it. Which, of course, still makes it a pretty great movie. The first one was good because of its clear affection and respect for Chinese culture (I still grin at Chor Gom Prison), its eschewment of the irritating tropes that had become DreamWorks mainstays at that point (pop-culture references, pop hit songs on the soundtrack, etc.), and its commitment to being a proper martial arts movie with legitimately thrilling action scenes. This sequel maintains the first two but falls slightly short on the third; the action is fun and imaginative, but there's nothing as jaw-droppingly awesome as Tai Lung's prison escape here. But it makes up for it with a more emotionally affecting story.

Did I say "emotionally affecting"? Sorry, I meant "shamelessly tear-jerking". It will come as a surprise to absolutely no one that Po is an orphaned member of a tribe of pandas whom Shen exterminated in an attempt to prevent the prophecy from coming true. (The prologue that kicks off the movie pretty much spells this out already.) This leads to flashbacks, both of how Ping found Po as a baby and raised him as his own son, and of how Po survived his village's massacre only because his mother sacrificed herself for him. There is nothing subtle or sophisticated about these scenes, but hot damn they worked, and managed to get cynical and jaded ol' TMBF a little misty-eyed. Baby Po is weapons-grade cute, but the animation, art direction and character design on a whole is so gorgeous that these scenes do achieve genuine poignancy.

Another interesting thing about the first Kung Fu Panda was that it was as much Shifu's story as Po's; the latter's ascension to Dragon Warrior was a redemption of the former's guilt over the failings of his former star pupil. Kung Fu Panda 2 attempts the same thing here with the villain, and gives Shen a characterization that mirrors the protagonist's - the peacock lord also has a traumatic past involving his parents that defines his current identity. It isn't as affecting though, mainly because Shen is the villain - and also a less fearsome one than Tai Lung, being a comedic bad guy rather than seriously scary. I'm less impressed with his peacock fighting style than most viewers seem to be, since the fight scenes move too fast to be able to make out any of the moves.

But I carp too much. It's fun and funny and action-packed from start to finish, and handily achieves everything it aims for. Po is more likable than any character played by Jack Black has a right to be - being merely voiced by him probably has something to do with it. I liked the fact that he's still as much a fanboy as ever, and at one point geeks out over a glorious charge of kungfu masters that he is himself part of. And I especially liked the fact that the storyline nicely balances making him the butt of jokes with making him genuinely heroic and badass; he may be the Dragon Warrior, but he is still a bumbler and none too smart, and the two never seem incongruous. Shifu takes a back seat to the proceedings this time, and the Furious Five are once again played by well-known names who barely get half a dozen lines each. (As does Jean-Claude Van Damme, whom I would have no idea was in this till I checked Wikipedia.)

So no, I don't think this is better than the original, and I don't think it's deeper or more adult as James Berardinelli wrote in his review. But it is, as its predecessor was, a terrifically entertaining animated movie that works as well for adults as well as kids. (Especially for kids; my viewing was packed with 'em, and they had a blast.) The thing about both Kung Fu Panda movies is that they take a premise that could've been kiddified crap, and invest it with enough wit, intelligence and sheer craftsmanship to transcend expectations of a DreamWorks Animation movie called Kung Fu Panda. I mean, seriously, Kung Fu Panda?? Hell yes, Kung Fu Panda - now comprised of two equally great films, with a third almost certainly on the way (as the ending of this one teases). And we'll know to expect great things from it too.

NEXT REVIEW: TBA

Ada kasih tapi kurang berseri

Nur Kasih: The Movie
My rating:




Dah lama saya menunggu filem baru dari Kabir Bhatia. Filem arahannya Setem adalah filem tempatan pertama yang saya benar-benar sukai, tapi itu dah hampir dua tahun lalu. Sebenarnya saya tak paham kenapa Setem tidak berjaya di box-office. Audiens yang menonton bersama saya semua enjoy giler, ketawa dengan semua lawaknya dan suka dengan semua wataknya. Takde ke seorang pun antara mereka yang cakap dengan kengkawan, "Citer nie best, pergi tengok"? Jadi saya amat mengantisipasikan filem Kabir yang seterusnya, walaupun ia merupakan sambungan kepada siri TV yang saya tak tahu apa-apa mengenainya.

Malangnya, filem ini tak ada apa-apa yang buat saya teruja macam Setem.

Adam (Remy Ishak) dan Aidil (Fizz Fairuz) adalah dua adik-beradik. Ibu mereka ialah Mak Jah (Liza Othman). Adam suami kepada Nur Amina (Tiz Zaqyah) yang pernah juga dicintai oleh Aidil (I think). Aidil baru kehilangan isterinya yang telah meninggal dunia, meninggalkan dia bersama dua anaknya Elyas (Ilyas Suhaimi) dan Mariam (Mia Sara Nasuha). Kemudian Nur mengandung, tetapi tragedi menimpa apabila kandungannya gugur. Untuk menawar rasa kepahitan, Adam dan Nur melancong ke Jordan, tetapi mereka terlibat dalam kemalangan keretapi terbabas. Mereka berdua terselamat, tetapi apabila Adam pulang ke tempat kemalangan untuk mencari cincin Nur yang tercicir, dia tersesat di padang pasir. Nur dan Aidil berjaya mencarinya, tetapi Adam mengalami kecederaan yang mengancam nyawanya. Juga ada subplot tentang Adam mengajar kelas agama bagi remaja yang bermasalah, termasuk Mamat (Muniff Isa), Juriah (Sara Ali) dan Jamal (Syafie Naswip).

Dari sinopsis di atas, anda dah boleh tahu apa masalahnya dengan filem ini. Saya menggelarnya "cerita pastu" - kerana plotnya macam "ini terjadi, pastu itu terjadi, pastu ini terjadi, pastu itu terjadi, pastu etc. etc. etc." Tiada benang naratif yang mengikat cerita ini dari mula sampai akhir. Segala tragedi yang melanda watak-watak ini macam saja je. Ini cukup membingungkan saya, lebih-lebih lagi kerana filem ini tidak menyenangkan penonton yang tidak kenal dengan siri TV Nur Kasih. Teks kat mula-mula tidak banyak membantu untuk menerangkan sejarah watak-watak ini. Benarkah Adam, Aidil dan Nur pernah bercinta tigasegi? Tak nampak pun. Tiga-tiga macam baik-baik je.

Sebenarnya itu salah satu benda yang saya suka. Semua ahli famili ini saling sayang-menyayangi; tiada konflik diantara dua-dua adik beradik, mahupun antara suami isteri atau abang ipar dan adik ipar. Saya pernah kata saya suka filem dimana watak-wataknya mulia, bijaksana dan pentingkan orang lain. Melainkan satu watak antagonis yang minor, hampir kesemua watak-watak dalam cerita ini boleh disimpati mahupun disanjungi. Konflik didalam filem ini selebihnya datang dari pancaroba kehidupan watak-watak ini - dan ini membawa kita kepada tema cerita ini, iaitu keredaan kepada kehendak Allah.

Tapi Tuhan dalam cerita ini bukannya Allah, sebenarnya ialah Kabir Bhatia dan penulis skrip Mira Mustaffa. Merekalah yang menentukan Aidil kehilangan isteri, pastu Nur keguguran kandungan, pastu keretapi Adam dan Nur terbabas, pastu Adam sesat di padang pasir... agak sadis jugak cara mereka menyeksa watak-watak ini. Tapi Aidil, Adam dan Nur reda saja. Mungkin kerana saya bukan orang Islam mahupun orang yang kuat agama, tapi saya dapati ini sukar dipercayai, lebih-lebih lagi kerana setiap tragedi terasa macam dibuat-buat. Saya rasa lebih jujur jika keimanan Adam atau Nur terjejas akibat segala kesengsaraan hidup mereka. Kalau mereka memarahi Allah, ini mungkin boleh jadi adegan yang amat menyayat hati (contohnya macam ini).

Of course, mestilah mereka mendapat kembali keimanan akhirnya, dan ini akan menunjukkan betapa berharganya iman. Malangnya, filem Melayu - dan masyarakat Melayu - belum berani lagi untuk mengkaji erti keimanan dengan lebih mendalam. Sebenarnya filem Barat lebih memahami isu ini; satu lagi contoh ialah filem Signs arahan M. Night Shyamalan. Tapi saya suka babak dimana seorang ustaz (lakonan Beto Kushairy) dilihat sebagai kolot pemikirannya dan kurang berperikemanusiaan; namun ini diimbang dengan babak lain dimana seorang pengusaha Melayu (lakonan Jehan Miskin, yang saya kasihan kerana tak pernah membawa watak orang yang baik) mahu menubuhkan kelab malam. Of course, dia dilihat sebagai seorang asshole.

Filem ini sentiasa nampak kemas dan berkualiti. Arahan Kabir teliti dan prihatin, dan skrip Mira adakalanya corny tetapi cukup bermakna. Lakonan Tiz Zaqyah cukup efektif dalam babak pasang air (i.e. turning on the waterworks), tapi saya lebih suka ketika dia bertekad hendak mencari suaminya yang hilang; ini satu-satunya ketika kita lihat watak yang aktif melakukan sesuatu. Pelakon-pelakon lelaki pula kurang menyerlah dan agak kayu; anehnya, Remy Ishak kurang chemistry dengan Tiz. Ingat mereka dah biasa memainkan watak-watak ini. Saya juga suka dengan Muniff Isa, manakala Sara Ali tetap kiut gilebabi.

Dukacita saya mengatakan bahawa ada persamaan diantara filem ini dengan Lagenda Budak Setan, yang juga mengamalkan polisi "lagi watak derita lagi menghiburkan" sampai tahap 11. Dukacita kerana Nur Kasih: The Movie tampak lagi baik (tahap 6 atau 7 je), tak macam filem taik itu. Ia bercita-cita hendak menceritakan kisah drama epik tiga insan dan erti kehidupan mereka hingga akhir hayat, tapi kurang berjaya akibat plot yang episodik dan bercelaru. (Dan kalau nak tiru filem The Notebook pun biarlah dari memula.) Cubaan yang boleh dihormati, tetapi saya lebih gembira bahawa saga Nur Kasih sudah tamat disini. Bolehlah Kabir - serta Mira - bikin cerita yang seharapnya lebih baik.

NEXT REVIEW: Kung Fu Panda 2
Expectations: pretty high