Death, depravity, inhumanity - yeah, and why should I care?

Carriers
My rating:




There was a time when a film playing in cinemas that you've never heard of and know nothing about generally fell into one of two categories: a) a B-grader that went direct-to-video in the States, whose international distributors treat markets like Malaysia as dumping grounds; and b) a Z-grader from some other foreign country that couldn't crack the coveted American market and could only sell to less discerning markets (like Malaysia). Our local distributors are somewhat more discriminating now; they largely pick only big Hollywood studio releases. Also, the global film industry has changed. Today, there's a chance that a movie with little to no buzz could be an indie or foreign-language gem - perhaps even a movie that goes on to become a hit, which would give you bragging rights as an early adopter.

Carriers isn't one of them. It sure tried though.

A viral pandemic has spread across the States, killing most of the population and reducing civilization to lawlessness. A group of four survivors - brothers Brian (Chris Pine) and Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci), Brian's girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo), and Danny's friend Kate (Emily VanCamp) - are heading to Turtle Beach, the brothers' childhood holiday destination, to wait for the pandemic to die out. But their encounter with Frank (Christopher Meloni), the father of an infected little girl, is only the first of many that will test their humanity in the face of a highly contagious - and fatal - disease.

That's a very misleading poster up there. It makes the film look like a gory horror flick, and if you've heard of it being about a viral apocalypse, you might assume it's a zombie movie. It's not - the virus just causes people to fall sick and die. And there are some suspenseful moments, plus a few icky-looking infected corpses, but you won't find anything really scary in here. This film is a bleak depiction of a post-apocalyptic landscape, and how survival trumps basic human decency. It's quite a daring, if depressing, film - Brian's group lives by the rule that the infected are already dead, and must be abandoned before they infect anyone else. You can bet that happens to a number of people a number of times in this movie.

The problem is that I never really cared about them. The characters are all dull and flat, and in Brian's case downright unlikable. I don't know why so many American films have this kind of character - the swaggering jerkass who's rude to everyone, whose only goal in life is to party, and whose recklessness gets himself and everyone else into trouble. I swear, it's an archetype. Brian was annoying, and it didn't reflect well on the rest of his group for putting up with him. Bobby is an idiot for dating Brian. Danny is the less assertive younger brother, and has absolutely no personality other than being the less assertive younger brother. Kate has a thing about trying every phone they encounter, hoping to call her parents, but this subplot goes nowhere.

You know what would've helped with the characterization? If the relationships between them were better-developed. You'd expect Bobby and Kate to be close to each other, being the two women of the group, but they barely even seem to be friends. Kate and Danny are friends, and there are hints of some romantic tension between them, but it never develops. As for the brothers, the film keeps flashing back to their idyllically happy childhood, but I never really believed they loved each other - because, again, Brian keeps acting like a jerk to Danny, constantly disparaging his younger brother's acceptance to college before the pandemic hit. The closest thing to a compelling relationship is Frank's with his daughter, but they're gone midway into the movie.

Sometimes good acting can make up for sketchily-written characters. That's not the case here. Chris Pine is the most effective, which is to say he really brings out Brian's assholishness. Piper Perabo has had the longest career of the four lead actors, but has never really distinguished herself - and she doesn't here. Lou Taylor Pucci is boring. (And he and Pine don't look a thing alike. Which genius thought to cast them as brothers?) Emily VanCamp looks like she might've done well if her character had more depth - at times Kate surprisingly displays an almost ruthless pragmatism - but that may've just been because I thought she was cute.

I said that it's a daring film, and it is. Any movie that plumbs the depths of man's inhumanity to man has to be; it stands in stark contrast to Zombieland, which uses the post-apocalyptic milieu for fun and thrills. But while the storyline and direction are generally solid, the lack of any emotional engagement sinks this movie. If we'd cared about these characters - if writer-directors Alex and David Pastor had taken a further polish to the script to make them real and sympathetic - this would have been a devastating film. As it is, it's just a fitfully interesting one.

NEXT REVIEW: Woohoo!
Expectations: another movie I don't know a damn thing about

Aduhai bodohnya movie ni

Duhai Si Pari-Pari
My rating:




I think I'm beginning to get into this whole Malay movie thing. F'rinstance, this one - I actually had an inkling that it might be good. Que Haidar was pretty decent in two films I've seen him in, and Liyana Jasmay was terrific in Papadom too. And Harun Salim Bachik may be our film industry's most reliable funnyman next to Afdlin Shauki. Yes, I've watched enough Malay films to recognize actors, especially the ones that have done good work. Seeing their names in an upcoming movie's poster or trailer bodes well for me; it almost makes me look forward to it.

That is, until I actually go watch the wretched thing.

Syadon (Que Haidar) is a loser amongst losers. His latest misfortune is his girlfriend Mala (Nabila Huda) turning out to be a conwoman who robs him of his savings together with her partner-in-crime Budi (Remy Ishak). His luck turns when he discovers a magic lamp teapot, out of which emerges a genie fairy magical something-or-other named Pari (Liyana Jasmay). Pari is on a quest to seek true love in the human world, and for some godforsaken reason thinks she can find it in Syadon. But her father Para (Harun Salim Bachik) has set her a deadline; if Syadon doesn't fall for her before then, she will "lenyap dari dunia", i.e. die. WTF kind of deal is that??

And WTF is up with Que Haidar in this thing?? He plays Syadon as an absolute retard, mugging shamelessly for the camera, thinking his idiot grin is all it takes to draw a laugh, and generally being annoying gila babi nak mampus. Is this what you call acting? Start sampai habis macam cacat otak? In 105 minutes (waaaay too long), he has totally destroyed my impression of him as a solid actor; I can't even think kindly of his performances in Setem and Papadom anymore. If I were to be generous, I could lay some of the blame on writer-director Azmi Mohd Hata's feet - but frankly, Que's performance was all his. He looked like he was going all improv there, really throwing himself into the role. Nice one Que, so glad you had fun making this movie, maybe for your next one you could show up at some screenings and kick a few audience members in the nuts.

But it's not like Azmi comes off smelling like roses either. Eh Encik Pengarah, ko tau tak the most important thing in comedy? Timing. That's something yang ko tak reti langsung, isn't it? Dahlah your jokes not funny, summore you drag them out just to let your actors (*coughQuecough*) annoy the living shit out of the audience even more. And you wrote this thing too, didn't you? Why does Pari fixate on Syadon as her one true love, just because he's the guy who picked her teapot out of a trash heap? Why are you so goddamn coy about what Pari is anyway? Or was she originally a genie, but then Jin Notti came out, so you made a quick switch to fairies, but you still got her coming out of a teapot, so now your konsep dah lari lintang pukang? And seriously, what kinduva moronic law is this in which fairies get wiped out of existence if they don't find love? Even Jin Notti's jin world was better developed.

Holy God yes, this is a movie that makes Jin Notti look good. Nothing about the fantasy elements make any sense. Pari and Para have your usual near-omnipotent (read: arbitrary) magical powers, but they only ever use them as dictated by the film's SFX budget, not the story. We don't ever see any other fairies, nor the "dunia kayangan" they're supposedly from. Fantasy tak kena, comedy pun tak kena, but the most epic of its fails is in the romance department. How are we supposed to root for Syadon to get together with Pari when he's so insanely stupid? There's gotta be a scene where he realizes he has feelings for her, and it's just not gonna work if he's been an insensitive moron all this time. But you realized that, didn't you, Encik Azmi? You knew how badly you and Encik Que had screwed up the character, and that's why you put in a voiceover - a frickin' voiceover - to flat-out tell the audience that tetiba Syadon cintakan Pari? Ini ko panggil filmic storytelling??

Fortunately, Duhai Si Pari-Pari has two good things that Jin Notti doesn't - they go by the names of Liyana Jasmay and Harun Salim Bachik. Liyana is still super adorable even when she's following Azmi's "direction", which is to do that exaggeratedly stupid schtick. But her role does call for her to express some genuine emotion - a practice known as "acting" - which she pulls off quite nicely. And I'm really getting to like Harun both as a comedian and a dramatic actor; there's a scene in which his daughter asks him if he's ever been in love, and his wordless and quickly-hidden expression says he has. (Which is some genuinely compelling dramatic material, not that Azmi would know that from his ass.) The fact that he keeps the schtick to a minimum, in a shitty "comedy" like this, is also testament to his talent. Certainly nobody else in this movie does - not Nabila Huda or Remy Ishak. Ini bukan panggil berlakon lah - ini panggil perangai bodoh.

But the most bodoh sebodoh-bodohnya is Que. For all that I've been laying the shit on Azmi, he deserves just as much of the blame. I mean, I've said it before; we have some real, genuine onscreen talent, in the form of solid actors like Liyana and Harun. It's the hacks and the idiots and the couldn't-give-a-shits behind the cameras that make almost every goddamn Malay movie macam sekeping taik. Still, I've resolved to watch and review 'em. And I'll still look out for the names of those I've been impressed with, and expect good things from the next film they're involved in. But not you, Que Haidar. You're dead to me.

NEXT REVIEW: Carriers
Expectations: none. Nada. Zero. Zilch

The inaccessibility of Mr. Gilliam

The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
My rating:




I remember watching Time Bandits and Brazil when I was small, on good ol' terrestrial TV. What I remember about them is that they were both absurdist comedies, with the second having somewhat blacker humour. The last Terry Gilliam film I've seen was 12 Monkeys, which I was again too young to know what to make of. (I'd love to be able to watch it again.) But now I am at the peak of my film-analyzing skills, so this makes the first Gilliam movie that I can absolutely fairly judge and review.

And I'm still not sure what to make of it.

Dr. Parnassus (Christopher Plummer) runs an old-fashioned traveling theatre troupe that also consists of his daughter Valentina (Lily Cole), his barker Anton (Andrew Garfield), and a dwarf named Percy (Verne Troyer). In actual fact, Parnassus is thousands of years old, having made a bargain with the Devil (Tom Waits) for immortality in return for Valentina's soul on her sixteenth birthday. One day they rescue a mysterious man named Tony (Heath Ledger) whom they find hanging from a noose; he claims amnesia, but joins their troupe. As Valentina's birthday draws near, the Devil makes another bet with Parnassus for the souls of his audience members, whom Tony (Johnny Depp/Jude Law/Colin Farrell) brings through Parnassus' magic mirror - which is in fact a portal into fantastical, imaginary worlds. Tony helps by making the show more contemporary and attractive, but he has dark secrets of his own.

"Imaginarium of Doctor... apatu." That's what I mumbled sheepishly to the counter guy when I bought my ticket. That mouthful of a title is in fact emblematic of what struck me the most about the movie - it's bloody inaccessible. It's just not easy to enjoy, or even comprehend. The scenes inside the mirror are wild and wondrous and very, very surreal - and surreality is something best taken in small doses. There are ideas and themes that are brought up in one scene and then never again. Parnassus is immortal, but he's always been accompanied by Percy - and why he's immortal, or why he always follows Parnassus, is never made clear. In fact, lots of things are not made clear - why certain people's faces change as they enter the mirror, but certain others' don't, is never explained beyond a device to allow Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell to sub in for Heath Ledger.

Even the characters are pretty hard to get into. Who's the protagonist here? Who's story is this really? You'd think Tony should be our POV character; if a film intends to bring us into a fantastical world, standard screenwriting wisdom entails that we should see it through the eyes of someone to whom all of it is as new as it is to us. But he isn't. In fact, the script rarely allows us to get a true handle on any of the characters. Andrew has a long-standing unrequited love for Valentina, and Parnassus wants to save his daughter's soul from the Devil. Yet neither of them really come across as sympathetic, nor do their needs provide any momentum for the plot. Tony especially is almost a complete cypher; we're just never given to understand what his role is in the story until the film's climax. All this makes the bulk of the movie dull, puzzling and frustrating.

So it's a good thing when that climax comes along and the story finally makes sense. And once it does, it's a pretty interesting one. I've always been partial towards fantasy, and I like that particular subgenre that involves outwitting the Devil's deals (although I don't know why he, being the Devil, would ever even honour a deal). This movie has a nice twist on it that I rather liked. The third act is where things finally start to get interesting, which is one of its two saving graces. The other is the quite frankly gorgeous look of the whole thing. Everything from Parnassus' horse-drawn stage-cum-mobile home, to the fantastical worlds within the mirror, are very imaginatively realized, and provide something nice to look at while the story meanders along.

Speaking of nice things to look at - Lily Cole may, in my humble opinion, be the film's most spectacular special effect. She is one yummy specimen; I was quite content to fix my gaze on her whenever she was onscreen, and she's surprisingly (and pleasingly) buxom for a runway model. She's also surprisingly good for a fledgling actress, which bodes well for my chances of watching another movie graced by her pulchritudinous presence in the future. Okay, okay, I should probably talk about Heath Ledger, seeing as this is his final film; he died before completing filming. You can see how good he was, how fully he throws himself into his roles, which makes his death all the more tragic. Depp, Law and Farrell all do pretty good jobs of mimicking his performance, and the transitions could almost be seamless. Christopher Plummer is decent, but Tom Waits seems like he should be a lot more fun.

And there really isn't much fun to be had, although the curious thing is that it feels like there should be. It's a whimsical fantasy adventure after all; but its whimsy just never translates into any actual laughs, nor does its adventure ever feel thrilling or suspenseful. And all that surreality never really comes together into anything that makes any sense. The most frustrating thing about this movie is the sense that somewhere, within Terry Gilliam's mind - and, possibly, in his original vision of the film in which Ledger completed his role - it does all make sense. But it just doesn't let us in there.

NEXT REVIEW: Duhai Si Pari-Pari
Expectations: dare I hope?

At least one sleepless night guaranteed

Paranormal Activity
My rating:




"One of the scariest movies of all time". Fwoar, so hyper your bole ar? This film has been riding on a pretty damn effective marketing campaign, and while scary is subjective, it looks like it's definitely become one of the most profitable movies of all time ('cos it was only made for US$15,000). The hype has reached Malaysia long before it's current cinema release; I know of quite a few people who found, um, ways to watch it months ago, and they only sought it out because they heard the hype. Which brings us to the USD$141 million (its total worldwide gross so far) question - is Paranormal Activity scary?

Here's a hint: the same night I watched it, I had a very hard time sleeping.

Micah (Micah Sloat), a day trader, and Katie (Katie Featherston), a graduate student, are a live-in couple in San Diego. Katie has been plagued by supernatural disturbances since childhood, and one day Micah buys an expensive video camera with the intention of capturing these occurrences on film. They are also paid a visit by a psychic, Dr. Fredrichs (Mark Fredrichs), who tells them that Katie is haunted by a demon - a being of pure malevolence that will follow her wherever she goes. As the disturbances grow in intensity and violence, Katie becomes more and more terrified - and Micah more and more determined to film them.

I actually like horror. No, really. I'm fascinated by that paradoxical human desire to experience fear, of all emotions. I reckon that of all the emotions that films and stories aim to evoke in their audience - laughter, joy, sadness, etc. - fear is the most difficult, and I admire films that do it successfully. My problem with horror movies is that most of them don't evoke fear, they merely evoke shock - hence, all those annoying "jump" scares. Or they evoke revulsion, with blood and gore and bodily dismemberment. Most "scary" scenes in horror movies - e.g. screaming female chased by sharp-instrument-wielding maniac - are often more akin to action sequences. Which, okay, I suppose you could argue that the emotion being evoked there is terror, which is part and parcel of horror. But fear - that unease, that feeling of dread, that sense that something's just wrong, that you're just not safe no matter what you do - it's a rare film that can do that.

Paranormal Activity does it. It does it so simply that it makes you wonder why so many horror movies go the complete opposite direction, blowing out on SFX and loud music and gallons of karo syrup. The film alternates between several daytime and nighttime scenes; it is during the latter, when Micah's camera films their bedroom as they sleep, that Katie's demon makes its appearances. And that simple setup - two people asleep in bed at night, whilst an invisible entity menaces them - is enough to be pants-wettingly terrifying. It's like Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho - the infamous shower scene isn't scary because of the violence. It's scary because it's in the shower. In there, you're naked. You're vulnerable, literally and psychologically. Likewise the nighttime scenes in Paranormal Activity; the bedroom is the room in which you sleep. And when you're asleep, you're completely, utterly defenceless.

It helps that the film is presented as a record of Micah's footage, with the verisimillitude that the home-video feel of it lends. The two principal actors also make their characters believable, with Katie Featherston getting most of the screen time as well as the tougher role; she handles her character's mounting terror and desperation quite effectively. And it also helps that the script provides some depth for their relationship. Micah is, to put it gently, a jerk. His excitement over capturing the demon on film supercedes his concern for Katie, and more than once asks her if there's a way to provoke the attacks. Later, he balks at calling for help because of his ego - it's his girlfriend and his house that's being threatened, so he insists on dealing with it himself. But Katie is by no means meek and submissive to him either; there's a give-and-take to their relationship that's nicely realistic.

(Incidentally, it's interesting that the actors play characters named after themselves, just like in The Blair Witch Project - a clear spiritual predecessor to this film. Director Oren Peli likely intended to promote this as a "true story" a la Blair Witch at first, then decided against it. Wisely, I think. Their current marketing angle is much better.)

I quite seriously considered giving this movie three-and-a-half stars, because it is just that damn scary; I'm recommending it to lots of people already, and telling them not to watch it on a night when they need to wake up early the next morning. (Seriously, you shouldn't.) But in the end I settled on three stars, because its most notable weakness is that the plot is really quite thin. It doesn't build up to a logical conclusion; the demonic attacks just grow more and more violent until the terrifying climax. Also, the characterization of Katie and Micah doesn't really develop any further, which is kinda disappointing. But I didn't notice any of this until after the movie, and I doubt most people will at all - you'll be too busy cringing in fear throughout. The audience at my screening certainly were. There was a discernible - and audible - tremor every time a nighttime scene began, and I could definitely sympathize.

I quite like these "found footage" films - I liked Blair Witch and Cloverfield, although I watched both on home video. This one is the first I've seen on the big screen, and unfortunately I sat a little too close in front and got a bit of a headache; I definitely recommend getting seats as far back as possible. But despite my throbbing head, this film still spooked the bejeezus out of me. To those who've already seen it on DVD and didn't find it scary: first of all, aiseh, you've spoiled it for yourselves laa. It works way better in a cinema with a couple hundred other scared-shitless viewers. And second of all, this is a very different kind of horror movie - it's much quieter, more subtle, and works on the rule that what you can't see is much, much scarier than what you can. Which is something that slasher flicks and torture porn and other modern horror films just don't understand. If you prefer their brand of horror - well, I gotta say, you're missing out on one of the scariest movies of all time. Which, yeah. It is.

Note: I have a theory regarding Katie's demon's attacks that I've not heard anywhere else. I tried not to spoil too much, but nevertheless I'm putting it in the comments just in case. Do tell me what you think.

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

NEXT REVIEW: The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Expectations: dunno what to expect. Haven't seen a Terry Gilliam film in years

Nope, still not a convert

Muallaf
My rating:




Okay, I chickened out of reviewing the last Yasmin Ahmad film I watched. She was, and still is, so universally praised after her death that I was afraid writing a negative review of Talentime would come across as disrespectful. And yes, that's pretty chickenshit of me - not so much because I'm afraid of raising the ire of her fans, but that I should be able to write a review without being disrespectful of her memory. It'll be a challenge - I just so love my own snark - but it behooves me to give it a shot.

But I'm really not liking her work so far.

Rohani (Sharifah Amani) and Rohana (Sharifah Aleysha) are two sisters living on their own in Ipoh; the elder Rohani works as a pub waitress to put her sister through school. Rohana's precociousness causes problems for her at school, which raises the interest of the principal, Brother Anthony (Tony Savarimuthu), and a young teacher, Brian (Brian Yap). Brian and Rohani become friends, sharing many talks on her Muslim faith, which leads Brian to contemplate his own lapsed Catholicism and his painful childhood memories - as well as his growing feelings for her. But the sisters' dark secret is that they are running away from a wealthy, abusive father (Dato' Rahim Razali) who is bent on tracking them down.

Look, I get that Yasmin's films are all intensely personal. And I get that they are all very much reflections of her personality, her views and her vision. But then again, so are all films (and all creative endeavours, period). The thing is, most good filmmakers know where to draw the line between "this is all about me" and "this is a story with an integrity of its own". I don't think Yasmin did. The stories she told, the characters in them, and the things they say and do, are all about her. Movies made this way rarely turn out good. Proof in point: in Muallaf, the main character Rohani is that most obnoxious of fictional creatures - the Mary Sue.

Let's see: she's a devout Muslim, yet displays an amazing knowledge of the Bible, the writings of Christian saints, and occasionally the Tao Te Ching. She goes to a crappy community college to inquire about courses on comparative religion, then makes some pointed jabs at the receptionist's ignorance of matters spiritual. She works in a pub, where she is popular with the patrons, despite the fact that she lectures them on the virtues of temperance. She visits the hospital every day just to visit a coma patient whom she doesn't know and read to her from the Quran. Her father is a callous, abusive scumbag, yet she beatifically forgives him all his trespasses. When she overhears Brian speaking harshly to his mother over the phone, she chastises him like a little boy. (And he still falls in love with her.) She takes taekwondo lessons, but balks at sparring, because she abhors violence... oh wait, that's the sister Rohana.

The whole movie is like this - didactic, sanctimonious, strident, on-the-nose, and utterly unbelievable. Rohani is not a person, she's a saint. (Hell, look at her name.) Neither is Brian; his sole purpose is to bask in in the glow of her godliness. This is not a story, this is a sermon; the plot does not evolve naturally out of the characters and their world. There's a meaningless subplot involving Cindy (Yeo Yann Yann), a fellow waitress at the pub where Rohani works, and it serves only to sling a few more arrows at our martyr of a heroine. Rohana's oh-so-precious habit of spouting numbers that turn out to be religious scripture makes no sense, considering she only mentions verse and line but not chapter. There's a running joke about Brian always forgetting to take his shoes off when entering the sisters' house, and I found myself thinking: whatchew trying to say, Yasmin? You think Chinese wear shoes inside the house izzit?

Well, yeah, I know that's a petty thing to think, but since everything that happens in this movie seems to be trying to make a point, can you blame me? It wouldn't be so bad if the story, as preachy as it is, were effective, but it very rarely is. Brian's childhood flashback scene is overwrought to the point of being unintentionally hilarious. There's a slapsticky joke about domestic violence, of all things, that's just jarring. Yasmin's directorial style is simplistic, naturalistic - and kinda boring. A bit of visual flair would've livened things up just a tad; and I don't know why she ended every scene with a fade to black. Even the performances are simplistic, naturalistic, and frankly, just plain wooden.

With the sole exception of Sharifah Amani. She's a terrific young actor, if only for her ability to recite Yasmin's stilted dialogue and make it sound natural - and she can claim credit for the film's only effectively poignant scene, where Rohani reveals her scarred and bleeding freshly-shaved head. And yes, she can make even a Mary Sue seem likable. Brian Yap and Tony Savarimuthu are new to acting, and their inexperience shows. But even a veteran of Singaporean film, TV and stage like Yeo Yann Yann has trouble with Yasmin's script; I don't know why Cindy speaks in heavily-Chinese-accented English to her boss while he replies to her in Cantonese. In fact, whenever anyone speaks in Malay or Cantonese, they sound so much more comfortable.

Well, that's as non-snarky as I can make it. How'd I do? This film is Yasmin's most overtly controversial; it was banned in Malaysia, first screened in Singapore, and only now allowed to be screened here with two lines of dialogue muted. (And of course, they're utterly harmless, and you can find out what they are here.) It certainly deserves to be seen by Malaysians; I just wish it was actually good. My sincerest apologies to her fans, friends and family, but I just didn't like this film, nor Talentime. Perhaps when I catch her other four films and do that retrospective I promised (I will, I promise), I'll find one I like. Perhaps then, I can speak with a little more authority on the legacy she left behind.

NEXT REVIEW: Paranormal Activity
Expectations: looking (*gulp*) forward to it

TMBF's Top 8 Movies of 2009

Well, every film critic's doing it, aren't they? And I couldn't call myself a real true bona fide film critic if I didn't as well. But yes, I know, I'm a few days late. And so's my The Hurt Locker review; I wanted to finish writing that first, because I suspected even before my second viewing of it that it deserved a place in this list.

And why a Top 8, instead of a Top 10? Because I only started blogging and reviewing in May. I didn't watch a lot of movies during the first four months of the year, I don't remember much of the ones I did, and besides, none of them were very good anyway. (No, I didn't much like Watchmen. And yes, I know and love the comic.) In any case, I don't feel like I can fairly compile the ten best films of the year, so eight it is.

In order from least great to most great, they are:

8. The Hurt Locker - A last-minute addition to my list, but a deserving one. A gritty depiction of war, an insightful portrait of the men who fight it, and an incredibly suspenseful movie. I'm writing this right after I finished my review of this film, and I'm still thinking about it. There've been other films about warriors who seem to live and breathe war, but this is the most realistic take on the theme to date - and one of the best.

7. District 9 - I only gave this three stars (revised to four) in my review, but I think I've been too stingy. One of the freshest and most original films of the year; from its setting, through its cast of unknown South African actors, to the faux-documentary style. And yes, it turns into a conventional action movie towards the end, but I was actually relieved that it did. Perhaps I really have been too harsh on Wikus.

6. Star Trek - One of the most purely entertaining movies of the year, and a textbook example of how to reinvigorate an ailing franchise. It's pretty amazing how wrong J.J. Abrams could've went and how many things he got right instead. There's not a lot of that uniquely Trekkian scientific exploration and social allegory, but the characters Trekkies know and love are alive and well, in a movie that even the most sci-fi-ignorant would enjoy.

5. Avatar - Considering the hype, it really should've placed higher on this list. But you'll never find a more technically accomplished movie this year, and the fact that it comes with an unoriginal, but serviceable and well-told story, is pretty damn good already. Also, it's Cameron's return to what he really does best - kick-ass action scenes. I've heard more than one person say that real life feels like a huge letdown after coming out of this movie.

4. (500) Days of Summer - Okay, I gave this movie four stars (revised to five), but I may have been overly generous. It's not an amazingly impactful film, but it is very funny, very well made, and very insightful about love and relationships - particularly for men. And it's still a romantic comedy, in that it's a celebration of romance, in all its heartbroken lows as well as dizzying, ecstatic highs. The best date movie of the year.

3. Departures - I almost forgot about this, in the wake of all the year's big-budget Hollywood blockbusters, but I'm glad I didn't. The most effective tear-jerker of the year, but emotionally true and honest enough to earn those tears. And half a year after I watched it, I can still hear Joe Hisaishi's cello theme. Everyone will eventually experience the passing of a loved one - and that's why they should watch this film.

2. Inglourious Basterds - The movie in which I finally got Quentin Tarantino, and it took a big-screen viewing to do it. It is so many things - a terrifically suspenseful thriller, a throwback to '70s exploitation flicks as well as old-fashioned WW2 action-adventures, a revenge fantasy, a celebration of cinema, and a showcase for terrific acting, including a brand new candidate for best movie villain. Two and a half hours has never sailed by so fast.

1. Up - I'll make no apologies for naming this the best movie of the year. Pixar proves they can tackle as mature a theme as grief and loss and still make a kid-friendly film - a marvelously fun, funny and exciting one at that. And then they also make it a film that's profoundly, sublimely moving. I've said before that a four-star (revised to five-star) rating means I thought it was virtually flawless, and this is. Carl and Ellie's life in ten minutes... I need say nothing more.

Honourable Mention: Setem - Still my pick for best made-in-Malaysia film of the year. The poorly-done action scenes bring it down, but the smart script, likable characters, and relentless comic energy make it a movie that's almost miraculously good, considering the average local Malay film. Not to mention it's a model for how a Malay film can also be a truly Malaysian film. And Afdlin Shauki has never been funnier.

No, I won't be doing a list of best movies of the decade. I've come to rely a lot on this blog to record my impressions of the films I've watched, so I can't look back on ten years worth of films to judge them fairly. (I really, really wish I'd started reviewing earlier.) I'm not doing a list of worst films of the year either, because it'll all just be Malay movies. And damned if I'm gonna spend any brain juice on ranking them.

I feel like this list is incomplete (besides having only eight entries); there are far too many other films on most Top 10 lists that I haven't watched. Up in the Air, An Education, A Serious Man, Precious, Where the Wild Things Are, Moon - I can only hope most of these make it to our theatres in 2010, if local distributors and FINAS are willing. Sadly, I suspect they won't be. Malaysia is far from the best place in the world for a movie buff, but I'll just have to live with the lot I'm given. Hopefully I'll be able to do Not Coming to M'sia reviews of these. And at least there's still stuff like Iron Man 2, Toy Story 3, Inception, and The Last Airbender to look forward to.

(And hey, new look! But cut me some slack. I'm good with words, not pictures, and I'm using a pretty lousy freeware image editor. Anyone wants to make me a nicer banner for my blog, I'll thank you by reviewing a movie of your choice.)

A belated Happy New Year to all!

A world of hurt, and the men who call it home

The Hurt Locker
My rating:




I've mentioned this movie before as one of the best-reviewed of the year, and now at year's end that reputation has solidified; it's already won dozens of film festival awards and earned a place in several critics' Top 10 of the year lists. Look for it to pick up some Golden Globes, maybe even an Oscar or two, next year. But I also mentioned this as a movie that's not being screened in Malaysia, and that's a crying shame. The only reason I can think of for that is that our benevolent Lembaga Penapisan Filem doesn't want us watching a movie that sympathizes with the "tentera penceroboh". (Which is what our local news used to call the U.S. troops during their coverage of the Gulf War. I shit you not.)

The crying shame is that I would've probably loved this movie if I'd seen it on the big screen.

Sgt. J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) are two members of a three-man EOD (Explosive Ordnance Disposal) unit under Bravo Company, serving in Iraq. After their team leader is killed in action, Staff Sgt. Will James (Jeremy Renner) joins them - and instantly earns their ire and suspicion for being cocky, reckless, and a possible danger to their lives as well as his own. Serving out the remaining thirty-nine days of their rotation will challenge both their safety and their sanity; especially when James' friendship with an Iraqi street urchin sets up a chain of events that lead him to take even rasher acts.

The movie starts off with a quote by New York Times war correspondent Chris Hedges: "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug." This is oddly on-the-nose, given that the rest of the movie makes practically no concessions to inattentive viewers. If you're ignorant about the guerilla war currently being fought between American troops and Iraqi insurgents, this movie isn't going to waste time explaining it to you. It has its own story to tell, and it isn't one that you've seen a dozen times before and can predict where it's going. I started off thinking that Sanborn is the hero, James is the antagonist, and the conflict between them would come to a head during the climax. I was wrong. James is the protagonist of the story, if not one you could call a "hero". And it isn't just an action thriller - it's a character drama.

It took me two viewings to really figure this out, because the first one somewhat puzzled me. I couldn't quite grasp the narrative through-line of this movie at first; most of it seemed pretty episodic, with the unit going on several missions and alternately bonding and bickering with each other in between. What really ties the movie together is the character of James. He does have a character arc, but it's subtle and unconventional, and extremely nuanced. He's reckless, but also supremely competent; cocky, but an excellent team player when necessary; annoying, but also thoughtful of his teammates; and when his hotheadedness gets him in over his head, he learns a harsh lesson. This is the most complex, grey-shaded characterization in any film I've seen this year.

Am I making this movie sound boring? It's not. Sweet zombie Saddam, this is one tense movie. Few things are as suspenseful as a bomb-defusing scene, and there are several here; and just for variety, there's also a firefight and sniper duel, and a chase down dark alleys. Kathryn Bigelow directs all of these in a gritty, realistic manner - and yes, "realistic" here means shaky hand-held cameras, but amazingly it never gets confusing or disorienting. Like Quentin Tarantino in Inglourious Basterds, Bigelow allows her setpieces to stretch to white-knuckle lengths - the scenes of the EOD unit's missions may be slow and quiet, but never, never boring.

Make no mistake, this is no dull, documentary-ish indie flick. This is a thriller, and a supremely thrilling one. It was released around the same time as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, and it's the perfect antidote to Michael Bay's crude and vulgar brand of action. Bigelow shoots the suspenseful scenes flawlessly, but she's ably supported by two things. The first is Mark Boal's screenplay, and its verisimillitude of real-life U.S. Army protocol and practices. There are no Hollywoodized contrivances here - this is as real as it gets, and it proves that realism is no obstacle to compelling filmmaking. The second are the characters, and the actors that inhabit them.

I first saw Jeremy Renner in 2003's S.W.A.T. (the one with Colin Farrell and Samuel Jackson), where he brought his brand of cocky swagger to a straightforward psychotic villain role. Will James is a far more difficult one to play, and Renner really pulls it off terrifically; his performance isn't flamboyant or show-offy, but it's every bit as subtle and nuanced as the character. Brian Geraghty's Eldridge is the youngest and most emotionally vulnerable of the unit, and Geraghty successfully wins our sympathy - a lot of the suspense comes from the anticipation that, out of the three main characters, tragedy is most likely to befall him. Anthony Mackie's Sanborn turns out to be the least well-developed of the three, which is a pity; I said that I thought him to be the hero of the film at first, because Mackie is that intense and charismatic. This film may be Renner's star-making turn, but Mackie deserves it as well.

Once again, it's a shame this movie didn't make it to Malaysian cinemas. I'm certain it would've made as big a splash as District 9 or (500) Days of Summer - both films that came with little to no anticipation, but went on to generate terrific buzz. As for me? I had to watch it twice before I fully appreciated it - and to be honest, after the first time I was only going to give it three stars. But see that quote on the poster up there? The one that says "A near-perfect movie"? It is. It really is, once you figure out where its story is taking you - and even if you don't, there are still all those incredibly suspenseful sequences. Definitely three and a half stars. And if I'd gotten to watch it on the big screen, could've been four.

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