Get thrown for a loop

Looper
My rating:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEXT REVIEW: Skyfall
Expectations: sky high!

Tiga hari bersama dua bahlol

Untuk Tiga Hari
My rating:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEXT REVIEW: Looper
Expectations: pretty high! 

This one is the law

Dredd
My rating:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do not watch The Raid: Redemption in cinemas

'Cos it's been dubbed into English.

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

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

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

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

Young and far from dangerous

Kepong Gangster
My rating:




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

'Cos I think they're gonna need it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEXT REVIEW: The Raid: Redemption
Expectations: ooohhh yeeaaahhh 

* "Dead meat".

Budi the leap year idiot baby

29 Februari
My rating:




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hurry hurry biker come to me

Premium Rush
My rating:




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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