Pixar 10, lousy movies 0 (pt. 2)

The Incredibles (2004)
My rating:




The only one I didn't have to rewatch for this retrospective - because I've seen it so many times already, it's still fresh in my head. This one is, for my money, the absolute best Pixar movie, and one of the best superhero movies of all time, period. (And I certainly wouldn't mind watching it again anyway, but writing these reviews is taking long enough as it is.)

The Incredibles was a big departure for Pixar in many ways. No more anthropomorphic critters, for one - the characters are all human. The first to garner a PG rating, for another, due to the action scenes in which people actually die. But this is as befits a bona fide costumed superhero movie with a touch of James Bond. The action scenes are far and away the best of any superhero film to date; the endlessly imaginative ways in which its varied superpowers are employed puts many a live-action comicbook adaptation to shame. (Yeah, go ahead and look sheepish, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.) But it also has plenty of heart to go with the action. The Parr family is terrifically well-developed - the love between husband and wife, the bickering between brother and sister, the pride of the father in his son, and the mother's faith in her daughter. It's amazing how the film handles all these relationships and does justice to each one.

Another huge departure for Pixar is bringing in outsider Brad Bird to helm his own film. Bird was largely known for making The Iron Giant, a critically-acclaimed but financially unsuccessful animated film. (I saw it, I love it, if you haven't seen it, see it.) This was their most daring leap of faith in their commitment towards keeping themselves from getting complacent, and it paid off magnificently. There's not a single thing in here that doesn't work, and many that are simply brilliant. Edna Mode. Samuel Jackson as Frozone. Dash's chase scene. Elastigirl's desperate attempts to evade the missile. The villain, Syndrome. The final battle scene against the robot. This movie absolutely deserves its four stars - and like all of my four-star films, if you don't like it, you are no friend of mine.


Cars (2006)
My rating:




The closest thing to a disappointment from Pixar (A Bug's Life gets a pass because it was only their second), although most people who say so are quick to disclaim that it's still better than most movies, animated or live-action. I'll say the same, but it's easy to see how this one's a step down from their usual standard - it's slow. It's not their first to come close to 2 hours - that would be The Incredibles - but it's the first to feel too long. Way too much time is spent on Lightning McQueen's stay in Radiator Springs, and there's a definite sense that director (and Pixar Chief Creative Officer) John Lasseter got too indulgent on this one.

Still, it's hard to fault it for the things it indulges in. The story of an arrogant and superficial young punk who finds humility, friendship, and something to believe in besides himself, is still genuinely affecting. The long, sweeping shots across landscapes are beautiful, especially McQueen's and Sally's drive; they highlight the fact that there really is nothing that Pixar can't animate and make it look gorgeous. The racing scenes are influenced by NASCAR, which was probably a lot of fun to fans of NASCAR. The entire film is a loving tribute to Route 66, a slice of Americana that means nothing to me, perhaps because I'm not American. Car freaks and gearheads would find a lot to enjoy - oh by the way, I drive a piece of junk that I treat solely as a means of getting from A to B. Just thought I'd share.

It's still a Pixar movie, so it's still funny, clever, heartwarming, and great entertainment. Owen Wilson's performance neatly walks the fine line between likable and annoying, the way the final race ends is brilliant, and the bit with the Kenny G song is the funniest joke in the whole movie. And the way they turn motor vehicles into characters, with relatable personalities and recognizable emotions, is pretty amazing. There's as much to admire here as any other Pixar film - there just isn't as much to enjoy.


Ratatouille (2007)
My rating:




It's getting seriously hard to decide between three-star and three-and-a-half-star ratings for Pixar films. After much thought, I'm giving Ratatouille three, but it's probably the best of the three-star lot. It's not as emotionally engaging as Toy Story 2 or Finding Nemo or Up, but it's more sophisticated than Monsters, Inc. and more consistently fun than Cars. In fact, Anton Ego's speech at the end almost earned it another half-star. As a critic myself, I may be somewhat biased.

It's remarkable how many themes this movie takes on, and for the most part it does them justice. One is how two species - humans and rats, no less - can learn to overcome their prejudices and respect each other. Another is of finding balance between where you come from and what you're yearning for, as depicted by how Remy is torn between his rat nature and his passion for cooking. And the third is how talent is often repressed and must be given the opportunity to shine - which is a theme also present in The Incredibles. (One wonders if Brad Bird has an axe to grind.)

This film went through a somewhat troubled production. Bird was brought in to replace its previous director Jan Pinkava, who was all but fired from the job. It's probably a miracle that the final product is as seamless as it is. The romance between Linguini and Colette is somewhat underdeveloped, as is the character of Linguini himself. And it seems a little contrived when Remy starts to resent Linguini getting all the credit. But these are easy to overlook. It makes cooking, running a gourmet kitchen, and facing the judgement of a food critic into a grand adventure, and if anyone thought Cars signalled the beginning of Pixar's decline, this film shut them up and made them eat ratatouille.


WALL-E (2008)
My rating:




I had expected to give WALL-E three-and-a-half-stars, based on what I remember from seeing it last year. But after watching it again, I'm glad to concede that this film is pretty damn close to flawless. There's nothing in here that doesn't work, nothing that doesn't hold up to a second viewing, and no way that it could fail not only to entertain but to enchant. It doesn't unseat The Incredibles as my favourite Pixar movie, but it's definitely another four-starrer.

I've made no secret of my preference for the Pixar films that explore a particular human insight, and succeeds at engaging both the heart and mind while doing so. WALL-E doesn't; the romance between the titular protagonist and EVE is no more complex or mature than the Sulley-Boo relationship in Monsters, Inc. But these are robots, who barely speak and don't even have faces. Yet they can display - and evoke - the full range of human emotion, including falling in love. The outer space "dance" scene is magical; the kind of magic that made me love film in the first place. There's more genuine romance between these two CGI robots than in most live-action flesh-and-blood screen couples. (That's right, The Proposal, hang your head in shame.)

Aside from being a terrific love story, it's also a sci-fi film that's aware of the satirical side of the genre. There are pointed jabs at consumerism, commercialism, environmental neglect, and how luxury encourages decadence; the intelligence with which it makes these points makes it solid science fiction. And then there's the theme of overriding one's own "programming". When EVE falls for WALL-E, she sets aside her directives for him; but he reminds her of them out of his love for her. And when he seems to revert to his own mindless trash-compactor programming, it is their love that once again restores him to his true self. It's the perfect metaphor for how passion can overcome conditioning, especially love - the greatest of human passions. This is a film that inspires it.

-----

One thing I've noticed in every Pixar movie to date is that they all reward multiple viewings - there's always something you didn't see or realise the first time, something that affects you more the second (or third, or fourth) time. Which is why I will be watching Up again, and I'm looking forward to it. One of my original titles for this retrospective was "The movie studio that can do no wrong" - they really are, and they really can't. Excellence is ingrained into them; great storytelling is SOP for them; making some of the best films of all time is simply de rigueur for them. What's truly amazing isn't that they've made ten great movies and no lousy ones - it's that they will most likely always make great movies. We are lucky - nay, blessed - to have them.

Update: I've had my second viewing of Up and updated my review. And since this retrospective has been pretty much leading up to it anyway, I can now rank all ten Pixar films by my preference.

1. The Incredibles
2. Up
3. WALL-E
4. Toy Story 2
5. Finding Nemo
6. Toy Story
7. Ratatouille
8. Monsters, Inc.
9. Cars
10. A Bug's Life

Bear in mind, the distinctions between most of these rankings are very fine. I wasn't sure where to put Toy Story 2 and Finding Nemo, I suspect I like Up more than WALL-E simply because I watched it more recently on the big screen, and both even made me reconsider The Incredibles. So allow me to disclaim once again - even Pixar's weakest movies are better movies than most. This is not a list of best to worst. It's a list of ten truly amazing films - and the fact that they all come from the same studio is what's most amazing of all.

Update: Ratings revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.

Pixar 10, lousy movies 0 (pt. 1)

I've previously only done retro reviews for films in a series or franchise. But Pixar is pretty much a franchise in itself; every single movie it's ever made has been good to excellent. No other film studio can claim such a track record, and thus no other film studio has become as recognizable a brand as Pixar - you're not gonna hear "I can't wait for the next 20th Century Fox movie!" anytime soon. So now that they've just released Up, their 10th film (or rather, now that it's finally here in Malaysia, almost 3 months after its US release), here's a look back at their nine previous films, all of which I picked up on DVD to rewatch as necessary. Dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it.


Toy Story (1995)
My rating:




The world's first fully computer-generated film - which, when it first came out, was seen as little more than a gimmick. It's hard to imagine the impact it made at that time - it was the first time anyone had seen Pixar's now-firmly-established formula of humour, action, warmth, and thematic richness, all executed in technically and artistically stunning CGI. The world really was blown away by Toy Story.

What surprised me, watching it again after several years, was how sophisticated the story is. Woody is basically a decent guy; charismatic, well-liked, and a good friend to his fellow toys. His one flaw is that he puts too much of his self-worth on his status as Andy's favourite toy - and when that status is threatened by the arrival of Buzz, Woody turns into a full-blown bastard. The rest of the movie is about him learning to become the hero he used to think he is, by setting aside his insecurity and utilizing his real strengths - his natural leadership ability and brilliant tactical planning (witness his stratagem for escaping from Sid's house, rescuing Buzz, and teaching Sid a lesson, all in one go). This is some complex and mature storytelling, folks, and in an all-ages animated film? Amazing then, amazing now.

Fourteen years after its release, the only thing that doesn't hold up is the animation quality. The characters' faces, especially the human ones like Sid and Andy, are pretty rough (and in the Tin Toy short film that comes with the DVD, the baby looks downright cacat). But only the most small-minded would not overlook this and enjoy Toy Story's boundless pleasures. Funny, clever, filled with lovable characters, even thrilling - in fact, it climaxes with one of the most exciting car chases in cinema, up there with anything in Bullitt or The French Connection or any of the Jason Bourne trilogy. Not kidding, folks. Its rousing ending is only the cherry on a marvelously satisfying cake.


A Bug's Life (1998)
My rating:




A Bug's Life came out just a month after DreamWorks' Antz, which many at the time felt was the better computer-animated film about anthropomorphic insects. Having not watched that movie in ages, I can't compare the two; but what is clear is that Pixar's second film will likely go down as its weakest. Its story isn't as mature or ambitious as Toy Story's, and many of the plot elements come across as cliched and corny. And I'll be glad to never see another scene in which the climax hinges around someone's oh-so-eloquent speechifying.

Of course, even a weak Pixar film is still an enjoyable one. It's terrifically funny, both in the clever jokes about insect behaviour as well as in the ensemble of characters - more so if you've watched The Three Amigos, Seven Samurai or The Magnificent Seven, all of which this movie parodies. The action sequences too are inventive and exciting, and Flik is as brilliant a tactical planner as Woody. Hopper is as smart as he is vicious, which is actually kinda rare for movie villains. And the "outtakes" during the end credits are both ingenious and freaking funny.

Still, it ultimately doesn't leave much of an impression. It's only the third 3D-animated film ever made, and looking back at the nine years since its release, it comes up about on par with stuff like Shark Tale and Madagascar and the Ice Age series. These are the movies which Pixar usually blows out of the water, both critically and commercially. It's still a lot of fun, but on the whole it's for Pixar completists only.


Toy Story 2 (1999)
My rating:




It's shocking to think that Toy Story 2 was once intended to be one of Disney's cheapo direct-to-video sequels. One of the few movie sequels that's better than its (already excellent) original, it achieves this with stunning thematic depth and richness. A cartoon about toys that's also a satire on toy collectors who collect them but don't play with them - and above all, a treatise on the ephemeral nature of love, brought to life with action, humour and poignancy? If A Bug's Life was a misstep, this is more than just a return to form - it's a bar-raiser.

The most memorable scene is, of course, Jessie's reminiscence of her previous owner Emily, set to Sarah McLachlan's rendition of "When She Loved Me". Few scenes in cinema are as emotionally powerful; even if your eyes don't mist up, you're guaranteed to feel nostalgic for the toys of your childhood - and guilty for throwing them away when you grew up. But it's not all heavy-going. The road crossing scene is a masterpiece of slapstick and suspense, and the antics of Buzz #2 - the one that still thinks he's a Space Ranger - highlight Pixar's mastery of character animation. The climactic rescue of Jessie from the plane doesn't quite match up to Toy Story's remote-controlled car chase, but it's a thrilling action sequence nonetheless.

Above all, it's a joy to spend time with these characters again - Woody, Buzz, Mr. Potato Head, Rex, Hamm, Slinky, and the rest of the Andy's Room gang. It's a testament to Pixar's commitment to not repeating themselves that this is so far their only sequel - but honestly, there isn't any of their films that you wouldn't love to see a sequel to, if they can make ones that surpass their originals so brilliantly. And with Toy Story 3 coming next year, there's every assurance that they'll do it again. Check out what's been announced about the premise of that upcoming film - it appears that the themes that this movie touched on will be explored even more fully. I can barely wait.


Monsters, Inc. (2001)
My rating:




I'm giving Monsters, Inc. three stars, mostly because the story isn't as deep or ambitious as their best. But that's a personal bias, and it'd be mean of me if I didn't mention that it's also one of their most purely fun movies. While I don't think it's among their best, it's still a damn sight better than practically any of rival DreamWorks Animation's stuff, as well as their other three-star entry A Bug's Life. It doesn't have as many characters, so it develops them better and gives each one more time to shine. Yes, Sulley's relationship with Boo is pretty formulaic, but their growing affection is so well-executed - and Boo is so incredibly cute - that it becomes one of the best examples of the formula.

What Pixar did with toys and insects, here they do for the denizens of Monstropolis - that is, create a fully-realized world that is strange, yet recognizable, and above all funny. This may be the best and most detailed story world they've created yet; how their city is powered by the screams of frightened children, which explains why they become literal monsters in the closet, which they access through a network of trans-dimensional doors. What it lacks in emotional engagement, it makes up for in sheer worldbuilding ingenuity, and I was seriously tempted to award it an extra half-star just for this. And the climactic chase scene among (and through) those doors is one of the best action sequences ever animated.

Pixar has largely eschewed stunt casting, but Billy Crystal and John Goodman are the perfect voices for Mike and Sulley (knowing Crystal, most of his dialogue was probably improvised), and their banter makes for most of the movie's laughs. Boo wouldn't have been half as adorable were it not for then-three-and-a-half-year-old Mary Gibbs' baby-talk and giggling. Randall is an effective villain, but unfortunately Steve Buscemi's performance is the weakest part of the character. Monsters, Inc. may not have reached the heights of its immediate predecessor, but it's still good enough that Pixar's reputation for superlative family entertainment stayed pretty damn bright.


Finding Nemo (2003)
My rating:




Where Monsters, Inc. is a solid home run, Finding Nemo knocks it out of the park - again. From the opening scene in which both Marlin's wife and his unborn children are killed (albeit offscreen), it lets you know upfront that this isn't gonna be another kiddie movie. It is, in fact, a story about the complex relationship between parents and children; how the overprotectiveness of one can stifle the other and keep them from achieving their full potential. And the main character is the parent, not the kid. Which studio has the balls to make a cartoon movie about that?

This is perhaps their most beautifully animated movie to date; some underwater scenes are virtually indistinguishable from real life, and although the characters can talk and have human personalities, they look and move and behave like fish. And their fish jokes this time are even funnier than their toy or insect or monster jokes, more so if you rear tropical fish. Dory may be one of their most lovable characters ever; Ellen DeGeneres' performance is truly inspired, especially during her whale-speaking scenes. And although the story is about a dad and his son, it's the scene of Dory desperately pleading for Marlin not to leave her that's the most poignant.

The only real villain is Darla, the callous little girl who kills fishes, and even the sharks appear to have kicked their "addiction" to eating fish at the end. Most of the denizens of the ocean are helpful to Marlin and Dory, and this makes for one of the most good-natured Pixar films to date. Where A Bug's Life seemed messy with too many characters, Finding Nemo has an even larger ensemble, but handles it better. From Crush the surfer-dude turtle, through Gill and the rest of the fishtank gang, to Nigel the friendly pelican, these are all terrifically likable and memorable characters. But for me, it's the poignancy and emotional depth that makes this one of Pixar's best. (Which is kind of a redundancy, actually.)

Update: Ratings revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.

Adventure isn't out there - it's all around you

Up
My rating:




On the one hand, it must be great to be Pixar. Having made nine of the most highly-acclaimed animated films of all time, they've literally become a guarantee of smart, heart-warming, and supremely enjoyable cinema. On the other hand, it must be tough to be Pixar. Every great movie they make raises expectations even higher for their next - it must be unimaginably difficult just to meet the sky-high standards they've set for themselves.

Yet somehow, they can still surpass them.

After a long and happy marriage that ended with his wife's death, Carl Fredricksen (Ed Asner) is a grumpy old man who still harbours a childhood dream - and a promise to his wife - to become an explorer and travel to the fabled Paradise Falls. He sets out to fulfill this dream by floating his entire house away on thousands of helium balloons - but a stowaway eight-year-old boy named Russell (Jordan Nagai) complicates his plans. Together they will explore "a land lost in time", encounter a giant bird and a talking dog, as well as Carl's childhood hero Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer) - who isn't as heroic as Carl thinks.

It's amazing how many things this film attempts, and how it succeeds at every single one. As an action-adventure, it has thrills and spills galore. As a comedy, it's both hilarious and clever. As an animated film, it is gorgeously realized, with character designs that are immensely likeable and better-acted than most live-action films. As a response to those who think an elderly character could never appeal to kids, it puts their naysaying to shame. And - most amazing of all - as a meditation on loss and grief, and an exhortation to live one's life to the fullest even when it seems to be over... wow.

Seriously, wow. To attempt a story of such emotional depth in an animated movie. One thing Pixar doesn't get enough credit for is their ambition, besides the superlative technical and artistic skills to meet that ambition. I've read plenty of reviews that rave about Up's first 10 minutes, and what a masterpiece of poignant storytelling it is. And it is. Nothing could spoil the heartbreaking sadness, the sheer emotional power of it. Ellie was literally the love of Carl's life, and to lose that would be a pain greater than any of us could possibly imagine, let alone bear.

And Carl doesn't only bear it - the film is about him overcoming it. For all that he loved exploring and adventure as a child, when he finally embarks on his long-awaited journey, he spends most of it refusing adventure. The giant prehistoric bird - whom Russell names Kevin - doesn't impress him. A literal talking dog named Dug is just an annoyance to him. And when adventure calls to him to help Kevin... Carl would rather live in the memory of his dead wife. How he finally comes to his senses, to choose the present over the past, to honour his wife in spirit instead of in mere form - it is brilliant, brilliant storytelling. And it's an animated movie.

But Carl isn't the only compelling character, of course. Russell's wide-eyed innocence is the catalyst for Carl's change of heart, but there's a reason why he's so eager for the old man's attention and approval. (And Nagai's performance is amazing - voice casting and direction is yet another thing that Pixar does miles better than anyone else.) Dug, being a dog, is just as eager; his antics, along with the rest of Muntz's talking dogs, highlight the Pixar knack of portraying animals with human characteristics to hilarious effect. I doubt there's any real-life bird, giant or otherwise, as affectionate and intelligent as Kevin, but nobody could possibly quibble. And Muntz
makes for an eminently hissable villain.

Is it flawless? No - but I shan't even mention its missteps, so minor are they. It does so much right, and does it so right. This is easily one of the best movies of the year, folks - incredibly funny, thrilling, heartwarming, and possessing real emotional truth - everything you can expect from Pixar, and more. I'm planning to rewatch all of Pixar's films again (and boy am I looking forward to it!) for a retrospective review, and I can safely say that my all-time favourite Pixar movie is still The Incredibles. But even if Up is not the best, it's up there. It's definitely up there.

NEXT REVIEW: the Pixar retrospective, of course. What else is worth watching right now?

Update: Yes, I watched it again. And yes. It is flawless.

Those missteps I mentioned? There were only two: firstly, I thought Russell's dismay at Carl choosing his house over saving Kevin was a little too purposeful, too calculated towards Carl's character arc. I'd felt that Russell would be more understanding. But then again, Russell never did learn why the house was so important to Carl; and furthermore, he did make Carl swear (and cross his heart) that Carl would protect Kevin. Secondly, Muntz's attempted murder of Russell seemed jarring in a family-friendly film, which was a visceral reaction more than anything else. It simply didn't bother me the second time around, and neither did the thing about Russell.

And then there's the things I only just noticed. Carl and Charles - similar-sounding names, because the film employs the time-honoured trope of hero and villain being mirror images of each other. Both made a promise in their youth, and both grew obsessed with it in their old age, to the point of losing sight of their ideals - and they both happen to have had the same ideal. Muntz traded it for glory, Carl for grief - but Carl regained it when he discovered the true meaning of it. And what is this ideal? It's in the name of Muntz's airship - the one that Carl claims as his own, to replace that which symbolized the grief that he learned to put aside. The one named after the ideal that Muntz inspired in Carl in the first place.

Like I said - brilliant, brilliant storytelling. Four stars. Undoubtedly.

Update the 2nd: Rating revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.

My first - and hopefully last - non-review

Talentime
My rating:




I didn't like it.

And that's all I have to say. I'm afraid I can't write my usual review without coming across as disrespectful to allahyarham Yasmin Ahmad, and I'm not about to risk that.

I've been wanting to write something about her, but hadn't thought of anything to say - mainly because, until now, I'd never actually watched any of her films. (And yes, I'm quite embarrassed to admit that.) I had actually been planning to do a retrospective of her work, and frankly, I'd fully expected to write some pretty harsh reviews. I wasn't a fan of all of her TV commercials, for one.

I suppose scuttling my plans is the least of the blows her passing dealt. If I can't pay her the respect she is due, then I shall say nothing at all. And for her vision, her humanity - and yes, her talent, what of it I saw - she is due a great deal.

My apologies to those who've been waiting for my review. Perhaps later - and after I've managed to find all six of her films on DVD - I might still do that retrospective. But now is still a little too soon.

A movie about vile, disgusting, inhuman creatures. Plus aliens.

District 9
My rating:




It can't have escaped any moviegoer's attention that Hollywood is getting depressingly unimaginative these days. Their recycling engines have been churning out remake after remake for some time now, but even remakes seem sensible compared to movies based on the board game Monopoly, the videogame Asteroids, or the View-Master toy (and yes, all three have been optioned as films, and I really wish I was making that up). So here comes a real breath of fresh air - an independently-financed sci-fi action blockbuster, set in South Africa, starring unknowns, directed by a first-timer, featuring a truly original story...

...unless you remember Alien Nation. Fortunately, District 9 is no Alien Nation.

Twenty-eight years ago, a massive alien spaceship appeared in the skies above Johannesburg, South Africa, carrying over a million sickly aliens. Today, the camp in which they were housed has become a slum, and the aliens - derogatively referred to as "prawns" - are feared, discriminated against, and victimized. Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) works for MNU, the corporation contracted to manage the aliens; when he becomes exposed to an alien fluid and starts to mutate horribly, he gains the ability to operate the hitherto-unusable high-tech alien weapons. Both his employers, and a faction of Nigerian gangsters, are after him, and his only ally is an alien with the unlikely name of Christopher Johnson - who has his own agenda to help his people.

I gotta say, I went into this movie with pretty high expectations. It's been getting glowing reviews from all over, and for the most part it deserves them. What it does best is tell a smart and sharply allegorical sci-fi story that still manages to be a kinetic and spectacular action-thriller. Yes, you may be reminded of Alien Nation, but once you watch the film you'll quickly forget all about it; that 1988 film (and subsequent TV series) employed aliens as a metaphor for racism within the limited context of modern American society. By making its aliens truly alien, instead of just actors with funny heads, District 9 explores the metaphor much further, and challenges us even more to recognize them as sentient beings instead of monsters.

And good gravy, there are folks in this film who fail that challenge spectacularly. Two particularly despicable individuals are Wikus' boss and father-in-law (Louis Minnaar), who lies bare-faced to his daughter while ordering her husband's dissection, and Koobus (David James) the sadistic private soldier who gleefully admits he loves killing "prawns". And then there are the Nigerian gangsters who routinely prey on the aliens, murdering them and devouring their body parts. Kudos to the movie's ballsiness, for making the aliens sympathetic and humans the villains. These are some truly hateful people, and I couldn't wait to see them die painful and bloody deaths.

What keeps this movie from being truly great is the fact that our hero, Wikus, is one of them. He starts out as a simpering bureaucrat who cheerfully murders a nest of alien eggs; you'd expect him to grow a conscience, not to mention some testicles, after all that he goes through, but it sure takes him a while. First-time actor Sharlto Copley's performance is all quivering, panicked desperation, and although it's effective, it doesn't make for someone you can root for. I suppose I have to admire the film for not giving us the expected repentant-hero-sees-the-light character arc, but I prefer my heroes to be heroes, thanks. He does get to redeem himself in the last act, fortunately for both him and the movie - if he hadn't, I'd have knocked another half-star off my rating.

The film employs a faux-documentary style, interspersed with interview segments to provide backstory and exposition. The handheld camera is not as headache-inducing as, say, Cloverfield, fortunately (though I'd still recommend not sitting too close to the screen) - what it does is create a terrific verisimillitude to the proceedings. Everything looks and feels real; the CGI effects are so well integrated that you never disbelieve what you're looking at, and you're never pulled out of the world that the film sucks you into. It's possibly the most immersive film of the year, despite - or rather, because of - its bug-eyed aliens and laser guns and giant robot mech that shows up during the climax.

I really wish I could've given this film three-and-a-half stars; there's so much that's fresh, daring and intelligent about it, and it's a real bright spot in the midst of a frankly lackluster summer movie season. But the lack of any real emotional engagement (beyond cold, indignant rage at the atrocities the aliens suffer) makes it an experience I couldn't unreservedly enjoy. I can, however, unreservedly recommend it. Where G.I. Joe, Transformers 2 and Terminator Salvation are the cinematic equivalent of junk food, this here is a full-course meal. It nourishes the parts that those other movies cannot reach. Watch it, and see what real filmmaking looks like.

Update: Rating revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.

NEXT REVIEW: Talentime
Anticipation level: my first Yasmin Ahmad movie! Yes!

Dear Malaysian cinema distributors

You guys suck.

You really do. Isn't it your job to bring movies into Malaysia? Preferably good ones?

You're not doing your job.

Moon, The Hurt Locker, (500) Days of Summer? Heard of them? Best-reviewed movies of the year so far. Pretty varied bunch too - cerebral sci-fi, action thriller, and romantic comedy, respectively.

Where are they?

If you're not bringing in the really good stuff, quit complaining about pirated DVDs. You pussies.