Sigh. It's been a good week since my last review. TMBF has a day job, and it's been keeping him a lot busier than usual lately. (And for those of you who think I actually watch movies all day and write reviews for a living - hell to the N-O.) My poor hit count has dropped to the low single digits, after hitting a record high two Wednesdays ago. (Were you all that interested to see me swear up a storm?)
My plans for watching 2012 last weekend fell through, as have any chance of catching it during the week. It looks like my review of that movie will only be up by Saturday night or Sunday morning. So to my die-hard fans who've been breathlessly awaiting the next update: soon, Mum, soon.
Aside from 2012, there's already four other movies playing right now that I want to watch, and another four more opening next week. Hope I can find time to catch them all, but really can't guarantee it. It's not just a hectic week at work, it's a hectic time of the year.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
They ain't messin' with no broke niggas
Pisau Cukur
My rating:
Since I started this blog, I've been getting a solid primer on the ranks of Malaysian film directors. Every locally-produced film I've watched (not including two indies) has been from a different director - Syamsul Yusof, Ahmad Idham, Madya Razak Mohaideen, Kabir Bhatia, M. Jamil, Azhari Zain, Afdlin Shauki and Majed Salleh. And most of them are, to put it delicately, talentless hacks. Hell, half of them made films that are so staggeringly inept, I can barely imagine how tak malu they must be. Only Bhatia and Afdlin have proved themselves to be decent filmmakers and storytellers, and it's a sad statement on our film industry that we've only got two of such.
Fortunately, Bernard Chauly makes it three.
Intan (Nur Fazura) and Bella (Maya Karin) are best friends with similar mercenary attitudes towards love and relationships - Bella is an unashamed gold-digger, and although Intan has a career as a TV news reporter, she's dating a rich married Datuk. Whilst on an ocean cruise holiday, both girls get their opportunities to pursue their goals: Bella sets her sights on wealthy widower Datuk Hisham (Eizlan Yusof) and enlists the aid of an infatuated Faqir (Redza Minhat). Meanwhile, Intan gets mixed up in the affairs of Datuk Zakaria (Dato' Rahim Razali) and his three wives (Khatijah Tan, Umie Aida, Sharifah Sofia) and children (Liyana Jasmay, Nas-T) - and when a murder occurs, she smells a story and tags along with hunky private investigator Ari (Aaron Aziz).
It's sad that they didn't get to film on an actual ocean liner - the unconvincing sets and occasional obvious green-screenery are the only things that mar a very polished production. The technical aspects - production design, art direction, even wardrobe and styling - boast an attention to detail that's pretty damn rare for a Malay movie, lemme tell ya. And the polish extends to the screenplay as well - writer Rafidah Abdullah displays a remarkably sure hand at characterization, one of the hardest things to write well. I was especially impressed with Bella's character arc and its climactic moment; the craft and care with which it was set up can rival any Hollywood script. Even the murder mystery subplot is surprisingly well done, with the requisite red herrings and a clever resolution.
But I gotta say, this is a movie I like better looking back than I did while watching it. Now, I concede that that may have been due to the annoying wanker who sat next to me, who not only had no qualms about talking in the cinema but also snuck in a Ramly burger (wei, busuk laa!) that he didn't even finish... ahem. Thing is, for a comedy, I just didn't laugh much. There was plenty of wit in the dialogue, and Chauly succeeded in coaxing some entertainingly over-the-top performances from his female cast, but there simply weren't any big laugh-out-loud moments. In fact, one running joke - Intan's frequent exclamations of "oh my Dior, oh my Gucci, oh my Prada" - actually got on my nerves.
And on that note, I'm seriously wondering if the two leads weren't miscast. This is a broad comedy, and Maya never quite seems comfortable with that tone. Fazura, on the other hand, throws herself into her role with gusto - and therein lies the problem. Fazura's Intan is supposed to be the more serious, career-minded one - but Fazura overacts like mad, and it's often fun but occasionally grating. On the other hand, Maya's Bella is the out-and-out pisau cukur - and Maya's performance is earnest, but frequently wooden. Intan is obviously something of a gold-digger herself, what with her affair with Datuk Salleh (a suitably slimy Radhi Khalid), but essentially she's out to prove that she has smarts behind the pretty face. And although Bella has hidden depths, her mata duitan antics are mostly played for laughs. Ya lar, I totally think they should've swapped roles. And Intan's oh-my-expensive-fashion-brandname expletives should've definitely gone to Bella instead.
The rest of the cast's performances are, frankly, somewhat hit and miss. The ladies all seem to be having tremendous fun out-bitching each other, which leaves the serious acting to the menfolk - well, most of them. Aaron Aziz fares best as the macho giler PI, but Redza and Eizlan are kinda dull. Dato' Rahim Razali is a grand old man of Malaysian screen and stage, but horny old bastard doesn't seem to be a role he can pull off convincingly. There are cameos galore, and the funniest are the ones by Yasmin Yusuff, Elaine Pedley and madame screenwriter herself - but there's also a strangely unfunny one by Afdlin Shauki.
So Rafidah's script earns ten out of ten points for dramatic substance, but minus a few for relying too much on broad acting for the comedy - which, from what I've seen, is definitely a thing with local movies. But this one is heaps better than most, and not just because of the writing. It's crafted with a level of professionalism and competence that are shockingly lacking in far too many made-in-Malaysia movies I've seen this year; the blockheads who made those oughta hang their heads in shame. Syabas Mr. Chauly, you totally pwn those noobs.
NEXT REVIEW: 2012
Expectations: *eyeroll*
My rating:
Since I started this blog, I've been getting a solid primer on the ranks of Malaysian film directors. Every locally-produced film I've watched (not including two indies) has been from a different director - Syamsul Yusof, Ahmad Idham, Madya Razak Mohaideen, Kabir Bhatia, M. Jamil, Azhari Zain, Afdlin Shauki and Majed Salleh. And most of them are, to put it delicately, talentless hacks. Hell, half of them made films that are so staggeringly inept, I can barely imagine how tak malu they must be. Only Bhatia and Afdlin have proved themselves to be decent filmmakers and storytellers, and it's a sad statement on our film industry that we've only got two of such.
Fortunately, Bernard Chauly makes it three.
Intan (Nur Fazura) and Bella (Maya Karin) are best friends with similar mercenary attitudes towards love and relationships - Bella is an unashamed gold-digger, and although Intan has a career as a TV news reporter, she's dating a rich married Datuk. Whilst on an ocean cruise holiday, both girls get their opportunities to pursue their goals: Bella sets her sights on wealthy widower Datuk Hisham (Eizlan Yusof) and enlists the aid of an infatuated Faqir (Redza Minhat). Meanwhile, Intan gets mixed up in the affairs of Datuk Zakaria (Dato' Rahim Razali) and his three wives (Khatijah Tan, Umie Aida, Sharifah Sofia) and children (Liyana Jasmay, Nas-T) - and when a murder occurs, she smells a story and tags along with hunky private investigator Ari (Aaron Aziz).
It's sad that they didn't get to film on an actual ocean liner - the unconvincing sets and occasional obvious green-screenery are the only things that mar a very polished production. The technical aspects - production design, art direction, even wardrobe and styling - boast an attention to detail that's pretty damn rare for a Malay movie, lemme tell ya. And the polish extends to the screenplay as well - writer Rafidah Abdullah displays a remarkably sure hand at characterization, one of the hardest things to write well. I was especially impressed with Bella's character arc and its climactic moment; the craft and care with which it was set up can rival any Hollywood script. Even the murder mystery subplot is surprisingly well done, with the requisite red herrings and a clever resolution.
But I gotta say, this is a movie I like better looking back than I did while watching it. Now, I concede that that may have been due to the annoying wanker who sat next to me, who not only had no qualms about talking in the cinema but also snuck in a Ramly burger (wei, busuk laa!) that he didn't even finish... ahem. Thing is, for a comedy, I just didn't laugh much. There was plenty of wit in the dialogue, and Chauly succeeded in coaxing some entertainingly over-the-top performances from his female cast, but there simply weren't any big laugh-out-loud moments. In fact, one running joke - Intan's frequent exclamations of "oh my Dior, oh my Gucci, oh my Prada" - actually got on my nerves.
And on that note, I'm seriously wondering if the two leads weren't miscast. This is a broad comedy, and Maya never quite seems comfortable with that tone. Fazura, on the other hand, throws herself into her role with gusto - and therein lies the problem. Fazura's Intan is supposed to be the more serious, career-minded one - but Fazura overacts like mad, and it's often fun but occasionally grating. On the other hand, Maya's Bella is the out-and-out pisau cukur - and Maya's performance is earnest, but frequently wooden. Intan is obviously something of a gold-digger herself, what with her affair with Datuk Salleh (a suitably slimy Radhi Khalid), but essentially she's out to prove that she has smarts behind the pretty face. And although Bella has hidden depths, her mata duitan antics are mostly played for laughs. Ya lar, I totally think they should've swapped roles. And Intan's oh-my-expensive-fashion-brandname expletives should've definitely gone to Bella instead.
The rest of the cast's performances are, frankly, somewhat hit and miss. The ladies all seem to be having tremendous fun out-bitching each other, which leaves the serious acting to the menfolk - well, most of them. Aaron Aziz fares best as the macho giler PI, but Redza and Eizlan are kinda dull. Dato' Rahim Razali is a grand old man of Malaysian screen and stage, but horny old bastard doesn't seem to be a role he can pull off convincingly. There are cameos galore, and the funniest are the ones by Yasmin Yusuff, Elaine Pedley and madame screenwriter herself - but there's also a strangely unfunny one by Afdlin Shauki.
So Rafidah's script earns ten out of ten points for dramatic substance, but minus a few for relying too much on broad acting for the comedy - which, from what I've seen, is definitely a thing with local movies. But this one is heaps better than most, and not just because of the writing. It's crafted with a level of professionalism and competence that are shockingly lacking in far too many made-in-Malaysia movies I've seen this year; the blockheads who made those oughta hang their heads in shame. Syabas Mr. Chauly, you totally pwn those noobs.
NEXT REVIEW: 2012
Expectations: *eyeroll*
The second hand unwinds
The Time Traveler's Wife
My rating:
I love sci-fi, always have. When I was younger, I loved it for the escapism - how could boring old reality possibly measure up to a world with spaceships, robots, aliens, time machines and alien planets? But the genre isn't only about escapism; the challenge of any sci-fi story is to marry an out-of-this-world premise with human characters who deal with that premise in real, relatable, human ways. The Time Traveler's Wife is a prime example of that - the evergreen SFnal trope of time travel is mostly employed here as a fresh spin on what's essentially a down-to-earth romantic drama.
And it succeeds - but more in the romantic drama arena than the sci-fi one.
Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) has a singular genetic condition - he travels through time, unwillingly and uncontrollably. He often revisits significant moments in his life, and he always appears naked (his clothes don't travel with him). When he meets Claire Abshire (Rachel McAdams), she tells him she's been in love with him all her life - because as they fall in love and get married, he will frequently travel back to visit her younger self. But living with such a condition - dubbed "chrono-impairment" by geneticist Dr. Kendrick (Stephen Tobolowsky) who helps Henry - takes a toll on their relationship, especially when they try to have children.
I wish I'd read the Audrey Nifenegger novel this film was based on. According to this review, it has a wealth of little details that the movie leaves out, in favour of streamlining the plot - and the plot isn't any great shakes. I'd have to agree, but I still liked it better than that reviewer did. The romance worked for me; Henry and Claire's love for each other is affecting and effective. I also liked the fact that this wasn't your typical Hollywood love story, in which the beginning of a relationship is the end of the movie - we follow Henry and Claire through several years of their lives together, and this makes for a more mature romance than we usually see.
But there's a definite sense that the film doesn't make full use of its premise. Being able to travel through time should affect Henry's and Claire's lives in many, many more ways than are shown here, and some of the ways it does show are glossed over. For example, there are implications that before he met Claire, Henry was a lonely man, unable to live a normal life because of his condition - but this barely comes across, and the character as written (and played by Bana) certainly doesn't seem like a social recluse. During their relationship and marriage, Henry's time-hopping seems little different from an absentee husband who goes on a lot of business trips. At one point, Henry uses a trip to the future to procure a winning lottery ticket that solves their financial worries, which raises the question of why he's never done that before.
It seems the filmmakers simply aren't familiar with sci-fi as a genre. Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin is mostly known for writing Ghost, and he had it easier with the metaphysical life-after-death aspects of that movie than the time-traveling of this one. I was honestly surprised at that bit with the lottery ticket, because it's the first indication that Henry can also travel to the future - quite a few time-travel stories have made it a rule that it's only possible to go back to the past. The film works best when time travel affects the central couple's lives in real, dramatic ways, such as when Claire gets pregnant - in fact, she suffers several miscarriages because, since Henry's condition is genetic, the fetuses tend to literally disappear from her womb. (Which means they appear somewhere, or somewhen, but we never see this. Would've been extremely icky though.)
But when the drama works, it works quite well. And the acting has a lot to do with it - McAdams and Bana make us believe that they're star-crossed lovers who are - literally - meant to be together. Everyone else is pretty much peripheral, really - Stephen Tobolowsky is always fun to watch (he's a perfect "hey, it's that guy!"-type actor whom you've seen in hundreds of roles), but he's not in it much. Ron Livingston similarly has a rather thankless role as a friend of Henry and Claire, and from what I've read it seems there was a bigger subplot involving the character in the book that the movie left out.
This is the first movie in a long time that I'm giving three stars to, and frankly it's been a bit hard to review - it's not so bad that I can rant about where it went wrong, but not good enough to rave about either. I'm sure I'd have a lot more to say if I'd read the novel, but I suspect I'd probably like it less too. In any case, I did like it, and you'd probably like it more if you weren't as big a sci-fi geek as I am - probably a lot more if you like a good, weepy romantic melodrama, something I'm not immune to myself. (My feminine side, let me show you it.) Still, the next time a movie comes out that's based on a genre novel I've been meaning to read, I'm gonna make sure I read it first. Which reminds me, I need to pick up a copy of Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones real soon.
Update: Rating revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.
NEXT REVIEW: Pisau Cukur
Expectations: let's see what you got, Mr. Chauly
My rating:
I love sci-fi, always have. When I was younger, I loved it for the escapism - how could boring old reality possibly measure up to a world with spaceships, robots, aliens, time machines and alien planets? But the genre isn't only about escapism; the challenge of any sci-fi story is to marry an out-of-this-world premise with human characters who deal with that premise in real, relatable, human ways. The Time Traveler's Wife is a prime example of that - the evergreen SFnal trope of time travel is mostly employed here as a fresh spin on what's essentially a down-to-earth romantic drama.
And it succeeds - but more in the romantic drama arena than the sci-fi one.
Henry DeTamble (Eric Bana) has a singular genetic condition - he travels through time, unwillingly and uncontrollably. He often revisits significant moments in his life, and he always appears naked (his clothes don't travel with him). When he meets Claire Abshire (Rachel McAdams), she tells him she's been in love with him all her life - because as they fall in love and get married, he will frequently travel back to visit her younger self. But living with such a condition - dubbed "chrono-impairment" by geneticist Dr. Kendrick (Stephen Tobolowsky) who helps Henry - takes a toll on their relationship, especially when they try to have children.
I wish I'd read the Audrey Nifenegger novel this film was based on. According to this review, it has a wealth of little details that the movie leaves out, in favour of streamlining the plot - and the plot isn't any great shakes. I'd have to agree, but I still liked it better than that reviewer did. The romance worked for me; Henry and Claire's love for each other is affecting and effective. I also liked the fact that this wasn't your typical Hollywood love story, in which the beginning of a relationship is the end of the movie - we follow Henry and Claire through several years of their lives together, and this makes for a more mature romance than we usually see.
But there's a definite sense that the film doesn't make full use of its premise. Being able to travel through time should affect Henry's and Claire's lives in many, many more ways than are shown here, and some of the ways it does show are glossed over. For example, there are implications that before he met Claire, Henry was a lonely man, unable to live a normal life because of his condition - but this barely comes across, and the character as written (and played by Bana) certainly doesn't seem like a social recluse. During their relationship and marriage, Henry's time-hopping seems little different from an absentee husband who goes on a lot of business trips. At one point, Henry uses a trip to the future to procure a winning lottery ticket that solves their financial worries, which raises the question of why he's never done that before.
It seems the filmmakers simply aren't familiar with sci-fi as a genre. Screenwriter Bruce Joel Rubin is mostly known for writing Ghost, and he had it easier with the metaphysical life-after-death aspects of that movie than the time-traveling of this one. I was honestly surprised at that bit with the lottery ticket, because it's the first indication that Henry can also travel to the future - quite a few time-travel stories have made it a rule that it's only possible to go back to the past. The film works best when time travel affects the central couple's lives in real, dramatic ways, such as when Claire gets pregnant - in fact, she suffers several miscarriages because, since Henry's condition is genetic, the fetuses tend to literally disappear from her womb. (Which means they appear somewhere, or somewhen, but we never see this. Would've been extremely icky though.)
But when the drama works, it works quite well. And the acting has a lot to do with it - McAdams and Bana make us believe that they're star-crossed lovers who are - literally - meant to be together. Everyone else is pretty much peripheral, really - Stephen Tobolowsky is always fun to watch (he's a perfect "hey, it's that guy!"-type actor whom you've seen in hundreds of roles), but he's not in it much. Ron Livingston similarly has a rather thankless role as a friend of Henry and Claire, and from what I've read it seems there was a bigger subplot involving the character in the book that the movie left out.
This is the first movie in a long time that I'm giving three stars to, and frankly it's been a bit hard to review - it's not so bad that I can rant about where it went wrong, but not good enough to rave about either. I'm sure I'd have a lot more to say if I'd read the novel, but I suspect I'd probably like it less too. In any case, I did like it, and you'd probably like it more if you weren't as big a sci-fi geek as I am - probably a lot more if you like a good, weepy romantic melodrama, something I'm not immune to myself. (My feminine side, let me show you it.) Still, the next time a movie comes out that's based on a genre novel I've been meaning to read, I'm gonna make sure I read it first. Which reminds me, I need to pick up a copy of Alice Sebold's The Lovely Bones real soon.
Update: Rating revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.
NEXT REVIEW: Pisau Cukur
Expectations: let's see what you got, Mr. Chauly
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Fuck you Lembaga Penapisan Filem, and fuck you GSC MidValley
No, I will not be reviewing Seven Days.
I did watch it, and I quite enjoyed it. This review recommended it, and for the most part it was right - it's a tight, fast-paced and effective mystery thriller, albeit somewhat contrived and has a Tony Scott wannabe for a director. A lot of the movie's plot points were conveyed through dialogue, and since this is a Korean film, we relied on the subtitles. And every time there was vulgar language in the dialogue (which was often)...
...a guy in the projection booth would cover up the subtitles.
Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. It wasn't just annoying, it spoiled the movie.
No, I won't apologize for cussing this time. For one thing, I'm pissed off enough that I think I'm entitled to some strong language to express it. For another, I think it's fucking ridiculous to be so squeamish about profanity in this day and age. Nobody can keep me from hearing it, because nobody can keep me from saying it. I'm proving it right here in this post, on my blog.
I'll be boycotting GSC MidValley from now on for a good long while. I can understand that it's not really their fault, it's the National Fucking Censorship Board that probably made them do it. Well, since the LPF are - like so much else about our government - not answerable to the public, someone has to bear the brunt. Someone has to be made to understand how dissatisfied I am, how dissatisfied we are as media consumers. Someone has to pay.
Fucking jerkholes. I'm beginning to wonder now if there's any goddamn point to being a Malaysian cinema blogger.
I did watch it, and I quite enjoyed it. This review recommended it, and for the most part it was right - it's a tight, fast-paced and effective mystery thriller, albeit somewhat contrived and has a Tony Scott wannabe for a director. A lot of the movie's plot points were conveyed through dialogue, and since this is a Korean film, we relied on the subtitles. And every time there was vulgar language in the dialogue (which was often)...
...a guy in the projection booth would cover up the subtitles.
Fuck that. Seriously, fuck that. It wasn't just annoying, it spoiled the movie.
No, I won't apologize for cussing this time. For one thing, I'm pissed off enough that I think I'm entitled to some strong language to express it. For another, I think it's fucking ridiculous to be so squeamish about profanity in this day and age. Nobody can keep me from hearing it, because nobody can keep me from saying it. I'm proving it right here in this post, on my blog.
I'll be boycotting GSC MidValley from now on for a good long while. I can understand that it's not really their fault, it's the National Fucking Censorship Board that probably made them do it. Well, since the LPF are - like so much else about our government - not answerable to the public, someone has to bear the brunt. Someone has to be made to understand how dissatisfied I am, how dissatisfied we are as media consumers. Someone has to pay.
Fucking jerkholes. I'm beginning to wonder now if there's any goddamn point to being a Malaysian cinema blogger.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Nice body - shame about the soul
Jennifer's Body
My rating:
Yes, I liked Juno. The affected dialogue didn't really bother me, and behind it was a genuinely sweet and touching story with some really well-drawn characters. No, I don't much like Megan Fox. Don't get me wrong, I'd do her, but there's a long list of other female celebrities I find more attractive. Jennifer's Body is something of a proving ground for both Fox and Diablo Cody, the writer of Juno - for Fox, it's her chance to display some actual talent on top of her sex appeal, and for Cody, it's her chance to prove her smash debut wasn't a fluke.
Sorry, ladies. You blew it.
Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) and "Needy" Lesnicki (Amanda Seyfried) are childhood BFFs, even though Jennifer is the school sexpot and Needy is innocent and nerdy. One night, they go to a show by indie rock band Low Shoulder, and Jennifer is seduced by the lead singer (Adam Brody) and sacrificed in a satanic ritual - only to come back to life possessed by a demon. Soon, she's seducing boys and devouring them to keep herself beautiful, and Needy must stop her - especially when Jennifer begins to take an interest in Needy's boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons).
First of all, if you're going to watch this, read this review. The best horror employs its supernatural scares as a metaphor for real-life anxieties, and the best thing about this movie is that it picked a pretty cool one - the uniquely female fear of other women who have everything they don't, whether it's looks or smarts or self-assurance. If you're looking for some sexay Megan Fox action, you'll be disappointed. For one thing, this is Malaysia, hello, and for another, there isn't much even if the naughty bits weren't censored. This is, at heart, a chick horror flick, and you'll probably enjoy it better if you know that going in.
You'd probably enjoy it even more if it was actually good. The biggest problem is in the titular character. When you say "possessed by a demon", do you mean she's no longer herself? Do you mean she turns evil, which means she wasn't evil before? Well, the answer to the first two questions is no. Jennifer basically has her personality intact, plus an added demonic hunger for human flesh. So the answer to that third question - was she evil before? - is not clear. After her possession, she's bitchy and callous and cruel, and if this is how she's always been, why is Needy even friends with her?
And that's a pretty big problem right there. If we're asked to believe that Jennifer and Needy have been best friends "since the sandbox", we need to see some genuine friendship between them. But Jennifer pretty much treats Needy like dirt, pre- and post-possession, and Needy doesn't really seem needy enough to keep hanging around someone like that. At one point, we learn that Jennifer is actually the insecure one among the two; for all her hawtness, she still resents Needy for being smarter, more together, and having a geeky-but-loving boyfriend. Cool idea, but the movie doesn't go there far enough. We hardly see Jennifer vulnerable, nor does she ever seem to actually value her friendship with Needy. She needs to be a three-dimensional, fully-realized character as much as Needy is - and she's not. It's a horror film, and she's pretty much just the monster that must be defeated at the end.
Which brings me to the horror elements, and they're kinda WTFable. How does Needy figure out what happened to Jennifer and how to deal with her? She looks it up in the occult section of their school library. Aiyoo, movie, what laa?? The movie tries to hang a lampshade on it, but it can't hide the fact that this is just lazy plotting. Every supernatural story creates its own rules, but this one just seems like it's pulling stuff out of its ass, especially during the ending. After she's had a fresh kill, Jennifer is invulnerable - her wounds heal instantly, "like some real X-Men shit" - and you'd think this would be relevant later, but nuh-uh.
This is really disappointing coming from the pen of Diablo Cody. It's one thing for her to attempt the horror genre and fall short, it's another thing for her to drop the ball on characterization. There doesn't even seem to be much of her trademark contrived dialogue - probably because a lot of it is profane, and therefore deemed unworthy of Malaysian ears by the Lembaga Penapisan Filem. In fact, I have to wonder if the movie's problems was due to all the scenes they snipped. (There's a lesbian kiss between the two female leads that got cut, and although my penis feels cheated, it didn't really add anything to the story.) What you're left with is your run-of-the-mill horror movie - a few jump scares, some gory deaths, and a climactic womano-a-womano showdown.
So can Fox act? Well, to be fair, the script did her no favours - but to be fair, she didn't exactly make the most of it either. She's still little more than a walking pheromone, and although she looks like she's having fun, this role isn't gonna win her much respectability. Amanda Seyfried fares better - she's cute and likable, although frankly, the script didn't do her many favours either. Johnny Simmons does a decent job, although he looks much younger than his on-screen girlfriend. Adam Brody is fun as an utter douchebag, but sadly he's not in the movie much.
When I said "you blew it" to Cody and Fox, I wasn't being all high-and-mighty-film-critic. (Although I can be.) This movie flopped - and considering its hype, it was a big flop. I feel bad for them, I really do, and I hope they get another shot at what this movie should've gotten them. I'm giving it two-and-a-half stars for what it attempted, and I think that's generous. Besides, I found it pretty scary at parts, but then again, it doesn't take much to scare me.
NEXT REVIEW: Seven Days
Anticipation level: hey, why not?
My rating:
Yes, I liked Juno. The affected dialogue didn't really bother me, and behind it was a genuinely sweet and touching story with some really well-drawn characters. No, I don't much like Megan Fox. Don't get me wrong, I'd do her, but there's a long list of other female celebrities I find more attractive. Jennifer's Body is something of a proving ground for both Fox and Diablo Cody, the writer of Juno - for Fox, it's her chance to display some actual talent on top of her sex appeal, and for Cody, it's her chance to prove her smash debut wasn't a fluke.
Sorry, ladies. You blew it.
Jennifer Check (Megan Fox) and "Needy" Lesnicki (Amanda Seyfried) are childhood BFFs, even though Jennifer is the school sexpot and Needy is innocent and nerdy. One night, they go to a show by indie rock band Low Shoulder, and Jennifer is seduced by the lead singer (Adam Brody) and sacrificed in a satanic ritual - only to come back to life possessed by a demon. Soon, she's seducing boys and devouring them to keep herself beautiful, and Needy must stop her - especially when Jennifer begins to take an interest in Needy's boyfriend Chip (Johnny Simmons).
First of all, if you're going to watch this, read this review. The best horror employs its supernatural scares as a metaphor for real-life anxieties, and the best thing about this movie is that it picked a pretty cool one - the uniquely female fear of other women who have everything they don't, whether it's looks or smarts or self-assurance. If you're looking for some sexay Megan Fox action, you'll be disappointed. For one thing, this is Malaysia, hello, and for another, there isn't much even if the naughty bits weren't censored. This is, at heart, a chick horror flick, and you'll probably enjoy it better if you know that going in.
You'd probably enjoy it even more if it was actually good. The biggest problem is in the titular character. When you say "possessed by a demon", do you mean she's no longer herself? Do you mean she turns evil, which means she wasn't evil before? Well, the answer to the first two questions is no. Jennifer basically has her personality intact, plus an added demonic hunger for human flesh. So the answer to that third question - was she evil before? - is not clear. After her possession, she's bitchy and callous and cruel, and if this is how she's always been, why is Needy even friends with her?
And that's a pretty big problem right there. If we're asked to believe that Jennifer and Needy have been best friends "since the sandbox", we need to see some genuine friendship between them. But Jennifer pretty much treats Needy like dirt, pre- and post-possession, and Needy doesn't really seem needy enough to keep hanging around someone like that. At one point, we learn that Jennifer is actually the insecure one among the two; for all her hawtness, she still resents Needy for being smarter, more together, and having a geeky-but-loving boyfriend. Cool idea, but the movie doesn't go there far enough. We hardly see Jennifer vulnerable, nor does she ever seem to actually value her friendship with Needy. She needs to be a three-dimensional, fully-realized character as much as Needy is - and she's not. It's a horror film, and she's pretty much just the monster that must be defeated at the end.
Which brings me to the horror elements, and they're kinda WTFable. How does Needy figure out what happened to Jennifer and how to deal with her? She looks it up in the occult section of their school library. Aiyoo, movie, what laa?? The movie tries to hang a lampshade on it, but it can't hide the fact that this is just lazy plotting. Every supernatural story creates its own rules, but this one just seems like it's pulling stuff out of its ass, especially during the ending. After she's had a fresh kill, Jennifer is invulnerable - her wounds heal instantly, "like some real X-Men shit" - and you'd think this would be relevant later, but nuh-uh.
This is really disappointing coming from the pen of Diablo Cody. It's one thing for her to attempt the horror genre and fall short, it's another thing for her to drop the ball on characterization. There doesn't even seem to be much of her trademark contrived dialogue - probably because a lot of it is profane, and therefore deemed unworthy of Malaysian ears by the Lembaga Penapisan Filem. In fact, I have to wonder if the movie's problems was due to all the scenes they snipped. (There's a lesbian kiss between the two female leads that got cut, and although my penis feels cheated, it didn't really add anything to the story.) What you're left with is your run-of-the-mill horror movie - a few jump scares, some gory deaths, and a climactic womano-a-womano showdown.
So can Fox act? Well, to be fair, the script did her no favours - but to be fair, she didn't exactly make the most of it either. She's still little more than a walking pheromone, and although she looks like she's having fun, this role isn't gonna win her much respectability. Amanda Seyfried fares better - she's cute and likable, although frankly, the script didn't do her many favours either. Johnny Simmons does a decent job, although he looks much younger than his on-screen girlfriend. Adam Brody is fun as an utter douchebag, but sadly he's not in the movie much.
When I said "you blew it" to Cody and Fox, I wasn't being all high-and-mighty-film-critic. (Although I can be.) This movie flopped - and considering its hype, it was a big flop. I feel bad for them, I really do, and I hope they get another shot at what this movie should've gotten them. I'm giving it two-and-a-half stars for what it attempted, and I think that's generous. Besides, I found it pretty scary at parts, but then again, it doesn't take much to scare me.
NEXT REVIEW: Seven Days
Anticipation level: hey, why not?
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Ini ko panggil kurun ke-18??
Lembing Awang Pulang ke Dayang
My rating:
Remember Puteri Gunung Ledang? Five years ago, that was like the great hope of Malaysian cinema - the most expensive locally-produced film, the first Malaysian submission to the Academy Awards, and the first film that could cross over to audiences who normally wouldn't be caught dead watching a Malay movie. Yeah, that didn't happen. It was let down mostly by poor storytelling, which was really unfortunate, because it had a lot of things going for it - a great cast, terrific art direction, beautiful cinematography, solid production values, and a director with a vision.
Now here's another Malay historical film that has none of these.
Awang (Farid Kamil) and Dayang (Siti Elizad) are engaged to be married. When Bachok (Zul Huzaimy) earns a Datukship, his father Panglima Merah (Hattan) persuades Dayang's father (Kuswadinata) to send Awang on a three-year voyage to Makasar to bring back a wedding gift for his bride-to-be. While Bachok continues to climb the social ladder and plot to seduce Dayang, Awang encounters pirates, a vagabond traveler named Dekar Agas (Aziz M. Osman), the somewhat piratical seafarer Nakhoda Galigor (Khir Rahman), and the Dutch trader Claudia (Lynette Mei Ling Ludi) - and comes into possession of two mystical spears that are tied to his destiny.
I gotta say, I had trouble figuring out this story. I still don't know why Awang had to go on his journey in the first place, beside some vague goings-on about "adat". The dialogue is in classical Malay, and once again there are no subtitles. (They don't even care about the non-Malay market, do they?) Even worse, the audio quality is pretty goddamn terrible. You can tell that some of the recorded dialogue is unusable, and some lines had to be post-dubbed - and the post-dubbing isn't even in sync with the actors' lips. The volume levels aren't even balanced; the music and sound effects always tend to drown the dialogue. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same sound guy who did Skrip 7707. He seems to have gotten even worse.
But the most damning thing about this movie is its laughable production values. This isn't a remotely believable 18th century Tanah Melayu. Everyone's clothes are too clean and too brightly coloured, and the buildings and houses all have fresh coats of paint and shellac. And once we get to Makasar and meet some Dutch folks, it gets truly ridiculous. Does no one involved in this film know how Westerners dressed in the 18th century? The first white guy we see is wearing a sport coat. And then there's Claudia. Bad enough we're asked to believe a single woman can serve as a Dutch East Indies trading officer, but on top of that, her outfits look straight out of Zara and G2000.
I can't believe director Majed Salleh and his art department are that stupid; I think they didn't have the budget to recreate the period with any authenticity, so they just main lantak je. And so we get scenes like Awang fighting pirates on what's supposed to be the deck of a ship, with a badly-composited ocean behind him. At one point, Awang wears the same outfit we saw Bachok wearing in an earlier scene. I laughed out loud during one part where Awang and Galigor are escaping the Dutch, who fire on them with what are supposed to be muskets but look like toy cap guns. No, they're not stupid - they just expect the audience to be stupid.
But wait - Awang fights pirates? Sounds cool, dunnit? It would be, if the fight scenes had any decent choreography. There are enough of them that this movie could qualify as an action-adventure, but they're all amateurish and dull. None of the cast seem to be trained martial artists; they look like they've had all of a couple hours of silat lessons. And then there are the "mystical" elements. Awang's spears glow red and make electricity sounds. No, seriously. Later on, there's a scene in which the villain fights two old guys with lightning shooting out their hands. Force lightning! Ko ingat ni Jedi lawan Sith ke?! The scene with the muskets made me LOL, but this one made me yell "Apa niiii?!" at the screen.
Speaking of things that made me want to yell at the screen - there's a goddamn blatant racist caricature in this movie, in the character of a Chinese merchant in Makasar. I really wish I remembered the actor so I can name and shame him - he's a Malay guy doing a Cinapek accent that makes me want to sic the ISA on the entire production. Korang ingat kelakar ke, mengejek bangsa lain macam ni? Good thing he was only around for the Makasar scenes - this is the kind of distasteful crap I give one-star ratings for.
But no, I'm giving it one-and-a-half, so now I'm going to say something good about it. The first I heard about this movie was this synopsis, which is some weird shit about a cursed spear that makes its victims use it to kill someone else before dying. I'm assuming this is from the Malay legend the film is based on - and truth be told, it does a not-half-bad job of expanding on and making sense of it, right down to the ninety-nine dead. The bare bones of the plot is solid, and the script could actually make for a decent period romantic adventure - if it weren't for the annoyingly on-the-nose dialogue. And I don't care how much a part of budaya Melayu it is, people speaking in pantun is just goddamn pretentious.
Farid Kamil looks like he's sleepwalking through this film. Zul Huzaimy's Bachok is so slimy and loathsome, I wonder why anyone even wants to be in the same room with him, much less let him marry their daughter. Siti Elizad is a damsel in perpetual distress. Lynette Mei-Ling Ludi tries to play a femme fatale and fails. Everyone seems to have wandered off a bangsawan play; their performances are stiff and affected and completely phony. And in the time-honoured Malay film tradition of having "comic relief" characters that behave like total retards, we have Tamrin Ibrahim Pendek (likely the son of the Ibrahim Pendek) as one of Bachok's stooges.
I can't help but compare Puteri Gunung Ledang to this movie. PGL was an impressive failure, but it did so many things right that this one did wrong. It proved that it's at least possible to make a period Malay film that looks authentic, as long as you've got a strong vision and attention to detail - and, probably, a big-ass budget. This one doesn't have any of those. All it has is a lazy-ass director and crew who are out to insult the intelligence of Malaysian moviegoers. Here's one last example of how stupid this movie is: There's this bit where Awang plays a game of chess. When he wins, he says "checkmate".
He says "checkmate". In 18th century Tanah Melayu.
NEXT REVIEW: Jennifer's Body
Anticipation level: well, I liked Juno
My rating:
Remember Puteri Gunung Ledang? Five years ago, that was like the great hope of Malaysian cinema - the most expensive locally-produced film, the first Malaysian submission to the Academy Awards, and the first film that could cross over to audiences who normally wouldn't be caught dead watching a Malay movie. Yeah, that didn't happen. It was let down mostly by poor storytelling, which was really unfortunate, because it had a lot of things going for it - a great cast, terrific art direction, beautiful cinematography, solid production values, and a director with a vision.
Now here's another Malay historical film that has none of these.
Awang (Farid Kamil) and Dayang (Siti Elizad) are engaged to be married. When Bachok (Zul Huzaimy) earns a Datukship, his father Panglima Merah (Hattan) persuades Dayang's father (Kuswadinata) to send Awang on a three-year voyage to Makasar to bring back a wedding gift for his bride-to-be. While Bachok continues to climb the social ladder and plot to seduce Dayang, Awang encounters pirates, a vagabond traveler named Dekar Agas (Aziz M. Osman), the somewhat piratical seafarer Nakhoda Galigor (Khir Rahman), and the Dutch trader Claudia (Lynette Mei Ling Ludi) - and comes into possession of two mystical spears that are tied to his destiny.
I gotta say, I had trouble figuring out this story. I still don't know why Awang had to go on his journey in the first place, beside some vague goings-on about "adat". The dialogue is in classical Malay, and once again there are no subtitles. (They don't even care about the non-Malay market, do they?) Even worse, the audio quality is pretty goddamn terrible. You can tell that some of the recorded dialogue is unusable, and some lines had to be post-dubbed - and the post-dubbing isn't even in sync with the actors' lips. The volume levels aren't even balanced; the music and sound effects always tend to drown the dialogue. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the same sound guy who did Skrip 7707. He seems to have gotten even worse.
But the most damning thing about this movie is its laughable production values. This isn't a remotely believable 18th century Tanah Melayu. Everyone's clothes are too clean and too brightly coloured, and the buildings and houses all have fresh coats of paint and shellac. And once we get to Makasar and meet some Dutch folks, it gets truly ridiculous. Does no one involved in this film know how Westerners dressed in the 18th century? The first white guy we see is wearing a sport coat. And then there's Claudia. Bad enough we're asked to believe a single woman can serve as a Dutch East Indies trading officer, but on top of that, her outfits look straight out of Zara and G2000.
I can't believe director Majed Salleh and his art department are that stupid; I think they didn't have the budget to recreate the period with any authenticity, so they just main lantak je. And so we get scenes like Awang fighting pirates on what's supposed to be the deck of a ship, with a badly-composited ocean behind him. At one point, Awang wears the same outfit we saw Bachok wearing in an earlier scene. I laughed out loud during one part where Awang and Galigor are escaping the Dutch, who fire on them with what are supposed to be muskets but look like toy cap guns. No, they're not stupid - they just expect the audience to be stupid.
But wait - Awang fights pirates? Sounds cool, dunnit? It would be, if the fight scenes had any decent choreography. There are enough of them that this movie could qualify as an action-adventure, but they're all amateurish and dull. None of the cast seem to be trained martial artists; they look like they've had all of a couple hours of silat lessons. And then there are the "mystical" elements. Awang's spears glow red and make electricity sounds. No, seriously. Later on, there's a scene in which the villain fights two old guys with lightning shooting out their hands. Force lightning! Ko ingat ni Jedi lawan Sith ke?! The scene with the muskets made me LOL, but this one made me yell "Apa niiii?!" at the screen.
Speaking of things that made me want to yell at the screen - there's a goddamn blatant racist caricature in this movie, in the character of a Chinese merchant in Makasar. I really wish I remembered the actor so I can name and shame him - he's a Malay guy doing a Cinapek accent that makes me want to sic the ISA on the entire production. Korang ingat kelakar ke, mengejek bangsa lain macam ni? Good thing he was only around for the Makasar scenes - this is the kind of distasteful crap I give one-star ratings for.
But no, I'm giving it one-and-a-half, so now I'm going to say something good about it. The first I heard about this movie was this synopsis, which is some weird shit about a cursed spear that makes its victims use it to kill someone else before dying. I'm assuming this is from the Malay legend the film is based on - and truth be told, it does a not-half-bad job of expanding on and making sense of it, right down to the ninety-nine dead. The bare bones of the plot is solid, and the script could actually make for a decent period romantic adventure - if it weren't for the annoyingly on-the-nose dialogue. And I don't care how much a part of budaya Melayu it is, people speaking in pantun is just goddamn pretentious.
Farid Kamil looks like he's sleepwalking through this film. Zul Huzaimy's Bachok is so slimy and loathsome, I wonder why anyone even wants to be in the same room with him, much less let him marry their daughter. Siti Elizad is a damsel in perpetual distress. Lynette Mei-Ling Ludi tries to play a femme fatale and fails. Everyone seems to have wandered off a bangsawan play; their performances are stiff and affected and completely phony. And in the time-honoured Malay film tradition of having "comic relief" characters that behave like total retards, we have Tamrin Ibrahim Pendek (likely the son of the Ibrahim Pendek) as one of Bachok's stooges.
I can't help but compare Puteri Gunung Ledang to this movie. PGL was an impressive failure, but it did so many things right that this one did wrong. It proved that it's at least possible to make a period Malay film that looks authentic, as long as you've got a strong vision and attention to detail - and, probably, a big-ass budget. This one doesn't have any of those. All it has is a lazy-ass director and crew who are out to insult the intelligence of Malaysian moviegoers. Here's one last example of how stupid this movie is: There's this bit where Awang plays a game of chess. When he wins, he says "checkmate".
He says "checkmate". In 18th century Tanah Melayu.
NEXT REVIEW: Jennifer's Body
Anticipation level: well, I liked Juno
Monday, October 26, 2009
Oh what a glourious war
Inglourious Basterds
My rating:
When Quentin Tarantino made a big splash with his debut in the '90s, it largely passed me by. I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs, but didn't catch Pulp Fiction till about 10 years after its release. I watched Kill Bill vols. 1 and 2 more for the fight scenes than their director. All of these, I saw in the comfort of my home in VHS, VCD and DVD. I can understand why he has such a cultish following, though I wouldn't call myself a Tarantino fan. I enjoyed the ones I watched, but I'm not particularly eager to catch his other two films that I missed.
But the first of his that I saw on the big screen? Is awesome.
The Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), are a guerilla unit of American Jews operating in Nazi-occupied France. Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) is a Jewish survivor of her family's massacre, living in Paris as a cinema operator under an assumed name. A premiere of a new propaganda film is to be held at Shosanna's cinema, and will be attended by the Nazi top brass - and both of them plot to blow up the cinema and possibly end the war in one stroke. The Basterds will be aided by British Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) and German movie star Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), while Shosanna must deal with Private Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a war hero who is infatuated with her - but hot on their heels is the famed Jew Hunter Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the man who murdered Shosanna's family.
Sweet zombie Hitler, this is one tense movie. The opening scene is a visit by Landa to a French farm. It's long, it's slow, the conversation between the Nazi colonel and the farmer is often inane, yet all of it serves to ratchet up the suspense higher and higher. Tarantino repeats this trick another two or three times throughout the movie, yet it never fails - Hitchcock would be proud of the way he creates white-knuckle tension, releases it in a burst of explosive violence, then primes us again for the next setpiece. I've seen enough WW2 movies to know that the genre has a thing for undercover Allied spies desperately trying to bluff their way past suspicious SS officers, and the movie milks this trope but good.
The other thing that makes this a terrifically suspenseful film is its unpredictability. Tarantino has never been known for adhering to formula - as a matter of fact, something he is known for is killing off characters in brutal and shocking ways. A character who gets a nice introduction, whom the screenplay spends time developing, whom you get to know and like, may not necessarily survive to the end of the movie. (Or even the middle.) Some may find this annoying and affected, but I thought it worked. You honestly never know what's going to happen from minute to minute, and having watched and reviewed 50-odd films this year, may I say how refreshing that is. Don't even think your knowledge of how WW2 ended will do you much good here.
In many ways, this is a deliberately anachronistic film. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that the extent of Hitler's Final Solution wasn't widely known until after the war ended. Yet the Basterds are out for bloody payback, Shosanna is driven to avenge not only her family but all Jews, and there are numerous references to the Nazis' atrocities against the Jewish people. This is in many ways a Jewish revenge fantasy, right down to the over-the-top ending (which I'm trying not to spoil, even though quite a few reviews already have). Many war films portray the "enemy" side as honourable soldiers who are merely doing their duty, but not this one. Almost every Nazi is despicably evil, and those who aren't are only there to add texture to a particular scene; certainly not because Tarantino wanted to be fair in his depiction of them. Exploitative? Perhaps. Effective? Hell yes.
And it wouldn't be half as effective if it weren't for some amazing acting. Christoph Waltz won a Best Actor Award at the Cannes Film Festival for this role, and he deserves it. He makes Col. Landa a deliciously riveting presence - you may hate the guy, but you'll love watching him. Expect every "Best Movie Villain" list to include him from now on. But for all the love Waltz has been getting, Melanie Laurent deserves plenty too. In many scenes, Tarantino lets his camera linger on a close-up of her face, and it's all on her ability to convey Shosanna's tortured emotions to carry the scene - and she knocks it out of the park each time. I'm a heterosexual male, and therefore I was more impressed by Laurent than even Waltz. Despite his top billing, Brad Pitt is merely competent; his role isn't nearly as well-written as these two. Diane Kruger and Michael Fassbender do notable jobs too - hell, there isn't a bad performance in the bunch, and plenty of great ones.
There are the usual Tarantino signature touches, such as chapter titles, playful little supers, flashbacks, even a voiceover. Fans will love them, but even non-fans - if you like thrillers at all - should be able to enjoy the sheer filmmaking craft on display here. I've been raving about the suspense factor, but honestly, there's some terrifically stylish direction here, especially during the final chapter and especially on and around Shosanna (and that dress she wears). Plus, of course, the irreplaceable pleasure of being riveted to your seat in anticipation of what the movie will show you next. I'm still not quite a member of the Cult of Tarantino yet, but if he makes a few more movies this good, I might pick up an application form.
NEXT REVIEW: Lembing Awang Pulang ke Dayang
Anticipation level: the Movie Gods giveth, and the Movie Gods taketh away
My rating:
When Quentin Tarantino made a big splash with his debut in the '90s, it largely passed me by. I enjoyed Reservoir Dogs, but didn't catch Pulp Fiction till about 10 years after its release. I watched Kill Bill vols. 1 and 2 more for the fight scenes than their director. All of these, I saw in the comfort of my home in VHS, VCD and DVD. I can understand why he has such a cultish following, though I wouldn't call myself a Tarantino fan. I enjoyed the ones I watched, but I'm not particularly eager to catch his other two films that I missed.
But the first of his that I saw on the big screen? Is awesome.
The Basterds, led by Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), are a guerilla unit of American Jews operating in Nazi-occupied France. Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) is a Jewish survivor of her family's massacre, living in Paris as a cinema operator under an assumed name. A premiere of a new propaganda film is to be held at Shosanna's cinema, and will be attended by the Nazi top brass - and both of them plot to blow up the cinema and possibly end the war in one stroke. The Basterds will be aided by British Lt. Archie Hicox (Michael Fassbender) and German movie star Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger), while Shosanna must deal with Private Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl), a war hero who is infatuated with her - but hot on their heels is the famed Jew Hunter Colonel Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz), the man who murdered Shosanna's family.
Sweet zombie Hitler, this is one tense movie. The opening scene is a visit by Landa to a French farm. It's long, it's slow, the conversation between the Nazi colonel and the farmer is often inane, yet all of it serves to ratchet up the suspense higher and higher. Tarantino repeats this trick another two or three times throughout the movie, yet it never fails - Hitchcock would be proud of the way he creates white-knuckle tension, releases it in a burst of explosive violence, then primes us again for the next setpiece. I've seen enough WW2 movies to know that the genre has a thing for undercover Allied spies desperately trying to bluff their way past suspicious SS officers, and the movie milks this trope but good.
The other thing that makes this a terrifically suspenseful film is its unpredictability. Tarantino has never been known for adhering to formula - as a matter of fact, something he is known for is killing off characters in brutal and shocking ways. A character who gets a nice introduction, whom the screenplay spends time developing, whom you get to know and like, may not necessarily survive to the end of the movie. (Or even the middle.) Some may find this annoying and affected, but I thought it worked. You honestly never know what's going to happen from minute to minute, and having watched and reviewed 50-odd films this year, may I say how refreshing that is. Don't even think your knowledge of how WW2 ended will do you much good here.
In many ways, this is a deliberately anachronistic film. I may be wrong, but I have the impression that the extent of Hitler's Final Solution wasn't widely known until after the war ended. Yet the Basterds are out for bloody payback, Shosanna is driven to avenge not only her family but all Jews, and there are numerous references to the Nazis' atrocities against the Jewish people. This is in many ways a Jewish revenge fantasy, right down to the over-the-top ending (which I'm trying not to spoil, even though quite a few reviews already have). Many war films portray the "enemy" side as honourable soldiers who are merely doing their duty, but not this one. Almost every Nazi is despicably evil, and those who aren't are only there to add texture to a particular scene; certainly not because Tarantino wanted to be fair in his depiction of them. Exploitative? Perhaps. Effective? Hell yes.
And it wouldn't be half as effective if it weren't for some amazing acting. Christoph Waltz won a Best Actor Award at the Cannes Film Festival for this role, and he deserves it. He makes Col. Landa a deliciously riveting presence - you may hate the guy, but you'll love watching him. Expect every "Best Movie Villain" list to include him from now on. But for all the love Waltz has been getting, Melanie Laurent deserves plenty too. In many scenes, Tarantino lets his camera linger on a close-up of her face, and it's all on her ability to convey Shosanna's tortured emotions to carry the scene - and she knocks it out of the park each time. I'm a heterosexual male, and therefore I was more impressed by Laurent than even Waltz. Despite his top billing, Brad Pitt is merely competent; his role isn't nearly as well-written as these two. Diane Kruger and Michael Fassbender do notable jobs too - hell, there isn't a bad performance in the bunch, and plenty of great ones.
There are the usual Tarantino signature touches, such as chapter titles, playful little supers, flashbacks, even a voiceover. Fans will love them, but even non-fans - if you like thrillers at all - should be able to enjoy the sheer filmmaking craft on display here. I've been raving about the suspense factor, but honestly, there's some terrifically stylish direction here, especially during the final chapter and especially on and around Shosanna (and that dress she wears). Plus, of course, the irreplaceable pleasure of being riveted to your seat in anticipation of what the movie will show you next. I'm still not quite a member of the Cult of Tarantino yet, but if he makes a few more movies this good, I might pick up an application form.
NEXT REVIEW: Lembing Awang Pulang ke Dayang
Anticipation level: the Movie Gods giveth, and the Movie Gods taketh away
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
