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!
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Friday, January 1, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Elementary, my dear Ritchie
Sherlock Holmes
My rating:
A couple weeks ago, I found two volumes of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes at a Popular bookstore outlet - the complete novels, and the complete short stories. In hardcover, for only 30 ringgit each. Sweeeeet. I picked them both up immediately, of course, glad that I could finally fill that gap in my childhood literary memories. Y'see, I grew up with my dad's copy of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the second anthology of stories, so I reckon I have more than a passing familiarity with the literary Holmes. I also remember watching the British TV series starring Jeremy Brett, who is still many fans' definitive Holmes on screen.
So all this makes my opinion of this movie - that it's pretty good - a thoroughly informed and expert one. Recognize, yo.
After foiling a ritual human sacrifice and apprehending Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) finds himself bored and depressed - more so because Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is getting married and moving out of their famous apartment on 221B Baker Street. Then longtime adversary Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) reappears to offer him a case (and reignite some long-simmering romantic tension), and furthermore Blackwood appears to have survived his hanging and literally risen from the grave with the help of supernatural powers. Both cases are of course related, and Holmes - aided by a now-none-too-enthusiastic Watson - must uncover Blackwood's megalomaniacal plans and foil them.
Yes, I enjoyed it, but the question on everyone's minds is: is it a faithful adaptation? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that there's a lot to Doyle's Holmes that most people don't know, mostly because they haven't actually read much of him. Four novels and sixty short stories covers a lot of ground, and reveal a great deal more about him than is popularly known - and most of what's popularly known about him came from other depictions in film, stage and illustration. Yes, he's pretty badass in a fight; yes, he's always been a master of disguise; yes, he's always been a bit of a pompous dick; and no, Doyle never mentioned him wearing a deerstalker cap. So yes, director Guy Ritchie's Holmes is pretty faithful - all the elements are presented and accounted for in the source material, and this article does a good job at proving it.
But where all the online talk has been about how faithful the character is, few people have noticed that the biggest departure has been in the tone of the film - even the genre. Doyle's stories have always, first and foremost, been mysteries - the plots were driven by either who did the crime, or how they pulled it off. This movie is not a mystery. Sure, there are scenes where Holmes shows off his brilliant deductive skills, and they are as much fun as they were in the stories; there's even a bit at the climax where he lays bare all the villain's plans. But those aren't what drives the plot. What keeps you watching isn't who did it or how. What keeps you watching is how the good guys are gonna beat the bad guys. It's an action movie.
So yes, Sherlock Holmes is an action movie. And yes, it's a pretty good one. You don't see many action movies set in Victorian London for one, and the setting is quite nicely realized - the CGI backgrounds are a little too obviously green-screened, but the sets and locations look great. There's a fight scene in a shipyard, another in a meat packing plant, a climactic fight atop a still-in-construction Tower Bridge, and it's all quite well done and effectively thrilling. And yes, the plot is Sherlock Holmes vs Spooky Supernatural Shit (somewhat), which is also kinda cool. It's far from airtight - you're likely to reach for something in your fridge a couple days later and suddenly think "wait, that bit there didn't make any sense" - but it moves fast enough that you won't notice it at the time.
It's also a buddy action movie, starring whom may be the archetypal buddies, Holmes and Watson. And here's another departure from Doyle's canon - I don't recall their relationship ever being so contentious. You may have watched the trailer where Watson punches Holmes in the face; yes, he does, and yes, Holmes deserved it. Holmes behaves very much like a jilted lover here, all because Watson is leaving their carefree bachelor lifestyle - and bachelor pad - behind for marriage. Yes, it's just a little gay, but then again all close male friendships onscreen are a little gay nowadays. Watson is at least a smart and capable sidekick this time, rather than the bumbling dimwit he's often been portrayed as; he's even as badass in a fight as Holmes. And yes, their banter is fun, with plenty of that uniquely British bombastic wit.
Robert Downey Jr. isn't going to replace Brett anytime soon, but he's lots of fun here. Iron Man proved he's one of the most charismatic leading men in Hollywood today, and likewise here he commands the screen and never delivers a joke that falls flat with the audience. The rest of the cast are just kind of adequate, really. Jude Law is a perfectly serviceable Watson - his may be casting against type, since Law seems a perfectly reasonable candidate to play Holmes himself. The gamble... pretty much breaks even. Mark Strong bears an uncanny resemblance to Andy Garcia; he looks mean enough, but never really comes across as a worthy adversary to Holmes. Rachel McAdams is a little young to play Irene Adler, really, and here she's also just adequate.
Incidentally, that Irene Adler is in this movie is more proof that, despite its title, Sherlock Holmes isn't trying to be a definitive portrayal of Sherlock Holmes (she's only ever appeared in one story, it's the fans that have proclaimed her the One True Love of Holmes' Life). It's a pastiche - it takes beloved familiar characters, puts them in unfamiliar situations, and just has fun with it. But there's nothing wrong with that. Holmes has long been one of the most popular literary figures, not just because of the stories or the character - because he's also in the public domain. The key to making a successful pastiche is to get the right things right (the characters) and the other things fresh (the plot). So on that note, does Guy Ritchie succeed? Yes.
NEXT REVIEW: Muallaf
Expectations: hmmm
My rating:
A couple weeks ago, I found two volumes of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes at a Popular bookstore outlet - the complete novels, and the complete short stories. In hardcover, for only 30 ringgit each. Sweeeeet. I picked them both up immediately, of course, glad that I could finally fill that gap in my childhood literary memories. Y'see, I grew up with my dad's copy of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, the second anthology of stories, so I reckon I have more than a passing familiarity with the literary Holmes. I also remember watching the British TV series starring Jeremy Brett, who is still many fans' definitive Holmes on screen.
So all this makes my opinion of this movie - that it's pretty good - a thoroughly informed and expert one. Recognize, yo.
After foiling a ritual human sacrifice and apprehending Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) finds himself bored and depressed - more so because Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is getting married and moving out of their famous apartment on 221B Baker Street. Then longtime adversary Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) reappears to offer him a case (and reignite some long-simmering romantic tension), and furthermore Blackwood appears to have survived his hanging and literally risen from the grave with the help of supernatural powers. Both cases are of course related, and Holmes - aided by a now-none-too-enthusiastic Watson - must uncover Blackwood's megalomaniacal plans and foil them.
Yes, I enjoyed it, but the question on everyone's minds is: is it a faithful adaptation? Well, yes and no. Yes, in the sense that there's a lot to Doyle's Holmes that most people don't know, mostly because they haven't actually read much of him. Four novels and sixty short stories covers a lot of ground, and reveal a great deal more about him than is popularly known - and most of what's popularly known about him came from other depictions in film, stage and illustration. Yes, he's pretty badass in a fight; yes, he's always been a master of disguise; yes, he's always been a bit of a pompous dick; and no, Doyle never mentioned him wearing a deerstalker cap. So yes, director Guy Ritchie's Holmes is pretty faithful - all the elements are presented and accounted for in the source material, and this article does a good job at proving it.
But where all the online talk has been about how faithful the character is, few people have noticed that the biggest departure has been in the tone of the film - even the genre. Doyle's stories have always, first and foremost, been mysteries - the plots were driven by either who did the crime, or how they pulled it off. This movie is not a mystery. Sure, there are scenes where Holmes shows off his brilliant deductive skills, and they are as much fun as they were in the stories; there's even a bit at the climax where he lays bare all the villain's plans. But those aren't what drives the plot. What keeps you watching isn't who did it or how. What keeps you watching is how the good guys are gonna beat the bad guys. It's an action movie.
So yes, Sherlock Holmes is an action movie. And yes, it's a pretty good one. You don't see many action movies set in Victorian London for one, and the setting is quite nicely realized - the CGI backgrounds are a little too obviously green-screened, but the sets and locations look great. There's a fight scene in a shipyard, another in a meat packing plant, a climactic fight atop a still-in-construction Tower Bridge, and it's all quite well done and effectively thrilling. And yes, the plot is Sherlock Holmes vs Spooky Supernatural Shit (somewhat), which is also kinda cool. It's far from airtight - you're likely to reach for something in your fridge a couple days later and suddenly think "wait, that bit there didn't make any sense" - but it moves fast enough that you won't notice it at the time.
It's also a buddy action movie, starring whom may be the archetypal buddies, Holmes and Watson. And here's another departure from Doyle's canon - I don't recall their relationship ever being so contentious. You may have watched the trailer where Watson punches Holmes in the face; yes, he does, and yes, Holmes deserved it. Holmes behaves very much like a jilted lover here, all because Watson is leaving their carefree bachelor lifestyle - and bachelor pad - behind for marriage. Yes, it's just a little gay, but then again all close male friendships onscreen are a little gay nowadays. Watson is at least a smart and capable sidekick this time, rather than the bumbling dimwit he's often been portrayed as; he's even as badass in a fight as Holmes. And yes, their banter is fun, with plenty of that uniquely British bombastic wit.
Robert Downey Jr. isn't going to replace Brett anytime soon, but he's lots of fun here. Iron Man proved he's one of the most charismatic leading men in Hollywood today, and likewise here he commands the screen and never delivers a joke that falls flat with the audience. The rest of the cast are just kind of adequate, really. Jude Law is a perfectly serviceable Watson - his may be casting against type, since Law seems a perfectly reasonable candidate to play Holmes himself. The gamble... pretty much breaks even. Mark Strong bears an uncanny resemblance to Andy Garcia; he looks mean enough, but never really comes across as a worthy adversary to Holmes. Rachel McAdams is a little young to play Irene Adler, really, and here she's also just adequate.
Incidentally, that Irene Adler is in this movie is more proof that, despite its title, Sherlock Holmes isn't trying to be a definitive portrayal of Sherlock Holmes (she's only ever appeared in one story, it's the fans that have proclaimed her the One True Love of Holmes' Life). It's a pastiche - it takes beloved familiar characters, puts them in unfamiliar situations, and just has fun with it. But there's nothing wrong with that. Holmes has long been one of the most popular literary figures, not just because of the stories or the character - because he's also in the public domain. The key to making a successful pastiche is to get the right things right (the characters) and the other things fresh (the plot). So on that note, does Guy Ritchie succeed? Yes.
NEXT REVIEW: Muallaf
Expectations: hmmm
Saturday, December 26, 2009
As heroic as bloodshed gets
Bodyguards and Assassins
My rating:
I feel like I ought to watch more Hong Kong and Chinese films. Reviews of Hollywood movies are a dime a dozen on the internet, but good reviews - in English - of Asian films are rarer, and likely to earn my humble blog a few precious more hits from other countries. (I highly doubt they'd be interested in Malay movies.) But English is, for all intents and purposes, my first language, and therefore I'm much more inclined to catch an English movie than a Chinese-language one. Which is why I rely so much on LoveHKFilm, one of my favourite sites, to recommend me the good ones. I'm only watching Bodyguards and Assassins because of their favourable review of it.
And they were right.
It is 1906, and the dawn of revolution in China. Sun Yat-sen is planning a visit to Hong Kong to unite several rebel groups, but his arrival is heralded by an army of Qing assassins led by Yan Xiao-Guo (Hu Jun). Before revolutionary newspaperman Chen Xiao-Bai (Tony Leung Kar-Fai) can organise a defense, Yan launches a pre-emptive attack against rebel leader Fang Tian (Simon Yam) and kidnaps Chen. It falls to Chen's friend and financier Li Yu-Tang (Wang Xueqi) to put together a rag-tag band of bodyguards - rickshaw puller A-Si (Nicholas Tse), Fang Tian's daughter Fang Hong (Li Yuchun), seven-foot-tall street vendor Stinky Tofu (Mengke Bateer), beggar and former nobleman Liu Yubai (Leon Lai), and Li's own son Chong-Guang (Wang Bo-Chieh). And at the same time, Li's concubine (Fan Bingbing) seeks the aid of her ex-husband, ne'er-do-well gambler Shen Chung-Yang (Donnie Yen), whilst British police chief Shi (Eric Tsang) must decide whether to help or hinder his friend Li.
How 'bout that, I actually managed to write a plot summary that included every single member of the film's star-studded ensemble. And that's definitely one of it's major selling points. That's twelve characters there on the poster, many of whom are played by Hong Kong and China's biggest stars, each getting an iconic moniker such as "The Gambler", "The Tycoon", "The Revolutionary" or "The Rickshaw Man". (Which is a neat bit of marketing, by the way - it really makes the film seem epic.) The movie's biggest success is in balancing them all, giving each a dramatic subplot, and turning them into likable and well-drawn characters - all the better for the dramatic impact when the action scenes kick in.
It takes a while to get there though, but that's by no means a flaw. The first half is almost all setup, introducing each character as well as establishing the historical context. And if you're itching to get to the fight scenes, settle down and enjoy the character drama first, which is really quite well done. The script establishes a number of relationships - Li and his rebellious son, Chong-Guang and A-Si, Chen and his former student-turned-adversary Yan, Shen and his old flame, and more - that are quite effective, even if they're necessarily lightly-drawn given the ensemble nature of the film. They all have different reasons for putting their lives on the line for a man they don't even know, most of which have nothing to do with patriotism or revolutionary spirit. But those themes are also present and accounted for, giving them a worthy cause for which to fight. (And of course, Sun Yat-sen wasn't assassinated in Hong Kong in 1906, but the plot does a clever turn to sidestep that fact and still maintain suspense.)
But this is Hong Kong film; more broadly, this is Asian film, with its typically melodramatic style of storytelling. This is a film where a rowdy street protest by democratic activists suddenly become silent witnesses to a heart-rending father-son argument. It isn't enough that Shen's old flame tells him that the little girl she's raising as Li's daughter is actually his - he must also run down the street after their rickshaw just to get a closer look at the girl. And when our heroes give their lives to protect Sun during the action-heavy second half, they will do so in the most awesomely heroic manner possible. There's plenty of blatant tear-jerking in this film, and while it does often cross the line into cheesy and manipulative, it also often works. This is heroic bloodshed, folks - that uniquely Hong Kong genre that combines action with grand operatic emotion, and if you don't have at least somewhat of an appreciation for it you pretty much need never watch a Hong Kong film.
And speaking of the action-heavy second half - yes, this is practically a full hour of wall-to-wall action, as the rickshaw convoy carrying Sun crosses a gauntlet of vicious Qing assassins. Unfortunately, the action isn't up to what you'd expect from a Hong Kong film. Director Teddy Chen films the fight scenes with quick cuts and shaky-cam, making it impossible to enjoy the martial arts choreography. He may have done so to cover up the fact that neither Leon Lai nor Li Yuchun - who both star in their own fight scenes - are trained kungfu artists. But even Donnie Yen's big fight with MMA star Cung Le (last seen in Pandorum and Fighting) is as incoherently shot and edited. I fear many moviegoers expecting an all-action spectacle will be disappointed, if they don't get with the characters and the themes. These are the things that keep the second half compelling, if not spectacular.
Wang Xueqi is easily the standout amongst the cast. His character performs the most emotional heavy lifting in the film, and Wang is outstandingly up to the task - the movie owes much of its success to his gravitas and screen presence. Donnie Yen gets top billing, but Li Yu-tang is the real main character of the movie. The other actors all portray simple roles effectively - Nicholas Tse is surprisingly good as a loyal simpleton, NBA player Mengke Bateer is one of the most likable of the heroes, Fan Bingbing is ridiculously beautiful (okay, that says nothing about her acting, but damn, she is), and Hu Jun is an effectively hissable, yet noble, villain. Sadly, the film's largest misstep is in casting Leon Lai as the secret kungfu master Liu. He does his best, but he's simply the wrong actor for that kind of character. I thought he should've swapped roles with Yen.
I really ought to mention the set, a meticulously - and very expensively - recreated life-size turn-of-the-century Hong Kong. The streets, Li's palatial home, Chen's printing presses, even Shen's tenement apartment - it all looks terrific, and effectively transports you into a different time and place. The same care and polish that went into the production design is reflected in every other aspect of the film, enough to smoothen out the weak spots. Don't go in expecting a non-stop "ta kau" flick, and you'll be able to enjoy a historical action-adventure that's stirring and poignant and epic in all the right places. There's no movie like a good Hong Kong-style heroic bloodshed movie, and we're lucky they're still making 'em.
NEXT REVIEW: Sherlock Holmes
Expectations: looking forward to it
My rating:
I feel like I ought to watch more Hong Kong and Chinese films. Reviews of Hollywood movies are a dime a dozen on the internet, but good reviews - in English - of Asian films are rarer, and likely to earn my humble blog a few precious more hits from other countries. (I highly doubt they'd be interested in Malay movies.) But English is, for all intents and purposes, my first language, and therefore I'm much more inclined to catch an English movie than a Chinese-language one. Which is why I rely so much on LoveHKFilm, one of my favourite sites, to recommend me the good ones. I'm only watching Bodyguards and Assassins because of their favourable review of it.
And they were right.
It is 1906, and the dawn of revolution in China. Sun Yat-sen is planning a visit to Hong Kong to unite several rebel groups, but his arrival is heralded by an army of Qing assassins led by Yan Xiao-Guo (Hu Jun). Before revolutionary newspaperman Chen Xiao-Bai (Tony Leung Kar-Fai) can organise a defense, Yan launches a pre-emptive attack against rebel leader Fang Tian (Simon Yam) and kidnaps Chen. It falls to Chen's friend and financier Li Yu-Tang (Wang Xueqi) to put together a rag-tag band of bodyguards - rickshaw puller A-Si (Nicholas Tse), Fang Tian's daughter Fang Hong (Li Yuchun), seven-foot-tall street vendor Stinky Tofu (Mengke Bateer), beggar and former nobleman Liu Yubai (Leon Lai), and Li's own son Chong-Guang (Wang Bo-Chieh). And at the same time, Li's concubine (Fan Bingbing) seeks the aid of her ex-husband, ne'er-do-well gambler Shen Chung-Yang (Donnie Yen), whilst British police chief Shi (Eric Tsang) must decide whether to help or hinder his friend Li.
How 'bout that, I actually managed to write a plot summary that included every single member of the film's star-studded ensemble. And that's definitely one of it's major selling points. That's twelve characters there on the poster, many of whom are played by Hong Kong and China's biggest stars, each getting an iconic moniker such as "The Gambler", "The Tycoon", "The Revolutionary" or "The Rickshaw Man". (Which is a neat bit of marketing, by the way - it really makes the film seem epic.) The movie's biggest success is in balancing them all, giving each a dramatic subplot, and turning them into likable and well-drawn characters - all the better for the dramatic impact when the action scenes kick in.
It takes a while to get there though, but that's by no means a flaw. The first half is almost all setup, introducing each character as well as establishing the historical context. And if you're itching to get to the fight scenes, settle down and enjoy the character drama first, which is really quite well done. The script establishes a number of relationships - Li and his rebellious son, Chong-Guang and A-Si, Chen and his former student-turned-adversary Yan, Shen and his old flame, and more - that are quite effective, even if they're necessarily lightly-drawn given the ensemble nature of the film. They all have different reasons for putting their lives on the line for a man they don't even know, most of which have nothing to do with patriotism or revolutionary spirit. But those themes are also present and accounted for, giving them a worthy cause for which to fight. (And of course, Sun Yat-sen wasn't assassinated in Hong Kong in 1906, but the plot does a clever turn to sidestep that fact and still maintain suspense.)
But this is Hong Kong film; more broadly, this is Asian film, with its typically melodramatic style of storytelling. This is a film where a rowdy street protest by democratic activists suddenly become silent witnesses to a heart-rending father-son argument. It isn't enough that Shen's old flame tells him that the little girl she's raising as Li's daughter is actually his - he must also run down the street after their rickshaw just to get a closer look at the girl. And when our heroes give their lives to protect Sun during the action-heavy second half, they will do so in the most awesomely heroic manner possible. There's plenty of blatant tear-jerking in this film, and while it does often cross the line into cheesy and manipulative, it also often works. This is heroic bloodshed, folks - that uniquely Hong Kong genre that combines action with grand operatic emotion, and if you don't have at least somewhat of an appreciation for it you pretty much need never watch a Hong Kong film.
And speaking of the action-heavy second half - yes, this is practically a full hour of wall-to-wall action, as the rickshaw convoy carrying Sun crosses a gauntlet of vicious Qing assassins. Unfortunately, the action isn't up to what you'd expect from a Hong Kong film. Director Teddy Chen films the fight scenes with quick cuts and shaky-cam, making it impossible to enjoy the martial arts choreography. He may have done so to cover up the fact that neither Leon Lai nor Li Yuchun - who both star in their own fight scenes - are trained kungfu artists. But even Donnie Yen's big fight with MMA star Cung Le (last seen in Pandorum and Fighting) is as incoherently shot and edited. I fear many moviegoers expecting an all-action spectacle will be disappointed, if they don't get with the characters and the themes. These are the things that keep the second half compelling, if not spectacular.
Wang Xueqi is easily the standout amongst the cast. His character performs the most emotional heavy lifting in the film, and Wang is outstandingly up to the task - the movie owes much of its success to his gravitas and screen presence. Donnie Yen gets top billing, but Li Yu-tang is the real main character of the movie. The other actors all portray simple roles effectively - Nicholas Tse is surprisingly good as a loyal simpleton, NBA player Mengke Bateer is one of the most likable of the heroes, Fan Bingbing is ridiculously beautiful (okay, that says nothing about her acting, but damn, she is), and Hu Jun is an effectively hissable, yet noble, villain. Sadly, the film's largest misstep is in casting Leon Lai as the secret kungfu master Liu. He does his best, but he's simply the wrong actor for that kind of character. I thought he should've swapped roles with Yen.
I really ought to mention the set, a meticulously - and very expensively - recreated life-size turn-of-the-century Hong Kong. The streets, Li's palatial home, Chen's printing presses, even Shen's tenement apartment - it all looks terrific, and effectively transports you into a different time and place. The same care and polish that went into the production design is reflected in every other aspect of the film, enough to smoothen out the weak spots. Don't go in expecting a non-stop "ta kau" flick, and you'll be able to enjoy a historical action-adventure that's stirring and poignant and epic in all the right places. There's no movie like a good Hong Kong-style heroic bloodshed movie, and we're lucky they're still making 'em.
NEXT REVIEW: Sherlock Holmes
Expectations: looking forward to it
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Filem yang sungguh bersaja-saja
Santau
My rating:
So yeah, the buzz around this movie is all about lead actress Putri Mardiana's scene in which she eats maggots. Oh yeah, that reeaaallly makes me want to watch it. Seriously, I considered skipping this movie, but in the end I gritted my teeth and decided to go for it. I thought the trailer was actually half-decent, and hey, what's this? A glowing review from Cinema Online? Well slap me silly and call me Suhaila, let's check it out!
Cinema Online's reviews aren't worth shit.
Halim (Esma Daniel) is a successful businessman with a beautiful wife, Nina (Putri Mardiana) and a daughter named Echa (Farisha Fatin). But someone jealous of his happiness has placed a curse on his family, in the form of a demon possessing Nina's body. As Nina's condition worsens, Halim begins to suspect that one of his neighbours - friendly and helpful Usin (Riezman Khuzaimi), or cold and aloof Man (Zul Handy Black) - is responsible.
So it's a horror movie, right? Meant to be scary, yeah? Give you that good ol' feeling of dread, huh? That's certainly what writer-director Azhari Zain intended. From the very first scene, he aims for an atmosphere of constant tension and foreboding, even in something as innocuous as Halim and Nina throwing a little kenduri at their house. And to accomplish that, he employs jarring musical cues and everything up to and including the kitchen sink - no matter how little goddamn sense it makes.
Take an early scene, in which little Echa hears creepy noises from her bedroom and sees a long-haired, rotted-flesh ghost under her bed. Wooo, scary! But in the very next scene, Halim leaves for work, and Echa is right there playing with her toys like nothing happened. What was the point of the bed ghost? Damned if I know. Then Halim goes to his office, he thinks he's alone but suddenly a figure moves past the camera, so wooo, spooky. Turns out it's one of his staff, but the guy's all monotone and blank-faced and warning him about all this dengki khianat gonna get all up in yo' face - and then he disappears into thin air. Next day when Halim meets the guy again, guy says he wasn't in the office that day. So who was he? What was his deal? Damned if I know. Damned if the movie knows, or gives a shit.
The whole film is like this. Halim drives down a dark road at night, and gets spooked out by a lorry tailgating him. Why is the lorry scary? What's the point of that scene?? It's completely saja je. At one point Halim and Nina walk by a completely random old lady who can see the ghost that's possessing Nina. Why? Saja. Echa is terrified of her mum becoming more and more possessed - then at one point when Halim carries her up to her room, the little girl too looks all ghostly and shit. Why? Saja. First it looks like there's only one long-haired female (it's always female) ghost terrorising Nina, but sometimes there's two of 'em. Why? Saja. The guy who turns out to be the villain is also the guy who warned Halim earlier about a curse placed on his family. Why did he do that? Saja. Halim is a skeptic, but turns out Usin and Man and Man's wife have like mad ghostbusting kungfu skillz. Why? Saja.
It's at times like this that I'd rather occupy myself by observing the audience around me. They were full of derisive comments at the countless stupidities of the plot. (Power goes out in Halim and Nina's house, Halim wants to go check the fusebox, Nina is freaking out and begging him to stay - and someone in the audience yells, "Ikut je laa!") I was beginning to feel proud of my fellow Malaysian moviegoer, that they're smart enough not to buy this shit shoveled at them. Then we got to the climax of the film, in which an imam and a bunch of kopiah-clad guys chant Quranic verses to exorcise Nina - and the whole audience went quiet. I'm hoping they'd just gotten bored, like I was, but I suspect it was because any kind of Islamic-themed content is enough to shut them up and go "rasa filem ni bes jugak, ada nilai-nilai moral dan agama." Sigh.
I guess I gotta give it up to Putri Mardiana, who displays impressive dedication when she stuffs bloody maggot-ridden fried eggs in her mouth. Rest of the time, all she does is look psycho, and she at least does that well. Esma Daniel is terrible - Halim comes across as an insensitive, willfully oblivious moron, even given the fact that he's written that way. Hafidzuddin Fazil plays the imam who exorcises Nina, and he speaks to a raving, wild-eyed, demon-possessed woman like he's ordering lunch. Zul Handy Black glowers a lot, and Riezman Khuzaimi looks slimy.
But the real star of the show here is Azhari Mohd Zain. This is the second movie of his that I've seen, and it is as steaming a turd as the first. Guy doesn't know the first thing about telling a story, let alone a horror story, let alone putting it to film. All he's doing here is throwing a bunch of "scary" stuff at the screen and calling it a horror flick. En. Azhari, you're a hack, an incompetent, and an utter failure as a filmmaker - and I bet either you or your producer David Teo paid duit kopi to Cinema Online for that review. Why would I make such an unfounded and malicious accusation? Saja.
NEXT REVIEW: Bodyguards and Assassins
Expectations: if it sucks, I'm blaming LoveHKFilm
My rating:
So yeah, the buzz around this movie is all about lead actress Putri Mardiana's scene in which she eats maggots. Oh yeah, that reeaaallly makes me want to watch it. Seriously, I considered skipping this movie, but in the end I gritted my teeth and decided to go for it. I thought the trailer was actually half-decent, and hey, what's this? A glowing review from Cinema Online? Well slap me silly and call me Suhaila, let's check it out!
Cinema Online's reviews aren't worth shit.
Halim (Esma Daniel) is a successful businessman with a beautiful wife, Nina (Putri Mardiana) and a daughter named Echa (Farisha Fatin). But someone jealous of his happiness has placed a curse on his family, in the form of a demon possessing Nina's body. As Nina's condition worsens, Halim begins to suspect that one of his neighbours - friendly and helpful Usin (Riezman Khuzaimi), or cold and aloof Man (Zul Handy Black) - is responsible.
So it's a horror movie, right? Meant to be scary, yeah? Give you that good ol' feeling of dread, huh? That's certainly what writer-director Azhari Zain intended. From the very first scene, he aims for an atmosphere of constant tension and foreboding, even in something as innocuous as Halim and Nina throwing a little kenduri at their house. And to accomplish that, he employs jarring musical cues and everything up to and including the kitchen sink - no matter how little goddamn sense it makes.
Take an early scene, in which little Echa hears creepy noises from her bedroom and sees a long-haired, rotted-flesh ghost under her bed. Wooo, scary! But in the very next scene, Halim leaves for work, and Echa is right there playing with her toys like nothing happened. What was the point of the bed ghost? Damned if I know. Then Halim goes to his office, he thinks he's alone but suddenly a figure moves past the camera, so wooo, spooky. Turns out it's one of his staff, but the guy's all monotone and blank-faced and warning him about all this dengki khianat gonna get all up in yo' face - and then he disappears into thin air. Next day when Halim meets the guy again, guy says he wasn't in the office that day. So who was he? What was his deal? Damned if I know. Damned if the movie knows, or gives a shit.
The whole film is like this. Halim drives down a dark road at night, and gets spooked out by a lorry tailgating him. Why is the lorry scary? What's the point of that scene?? It's completely saja je. At one point Halim and Nina walk by a completely random old lady who can see the ghost that's possessing Nina. Why? Saja. Echa is terrified of her mum becoming more and more possessed - then at one point when Halim carries her up to her room, the little girl too looks all ghostly and shit. Why? Saja. First it looks like there's only one long-haired female (it's always female) ghost terrorising Nina, but sometimes there's two of 'em. Why? Saja. The guy who turns out to be the villain is also the guy who warned Halim earlier about a curse placed on his family. Why did he do that? Saja. Halim is a skeptic, but turns out Usin and Man and Man's wife have like mad ghostbusting kungfu skillz. Why? Saja.
It's at times like this that I'd rather occupy myself by observing the audience around me. They were full of derisive comments at the countless stupidities of the plot. (Power goes out in Halim and Nina's house, Halim wants to go check the fusebox, Nina is freaking out and begging him to stay - and someone in the audience yells, "Ikut je laa!") I was beginning to feel proud of my fellow Malaysian moviegoer, that they're smart enough not to buy this shit shoveled at them. Then we got to the climax of the film, in which an imam and a bunch of kopiah-clad guys chant Quranic verses to exorcise Nina - and the whole audience went quiet. I'm hoping they'd just gotten bored, like I was, but I suspect it was because any kind of Islamic-themed content is enough to shut them up and go "rasa filem ni bes jugak, ada nilai-nilai moral dan agama." Sigh.
I guess I gotta give it up to Putri Mardiana, who displays impressive dedication when she stuffs bloody maggot-ridden fried eggs in her mouth. Rest of the time, all she does is look psycho, and she at least does that well. Esma Daniel is terrible - Halim comes across as an insensitive, willfully oblivious moron, even given the fact that he's written that way. Hafidzuddin Fazil plays the imam who exorcises Nina, and he speaks to a raving, wild-eyed, demon-possessed woman like he's ordering lunch. Zul Handy Black glowers a lot, and Riezman Khuzaimi looks slimy.
But the real star of the show here is Azhari Mohd Zain. This is the second movie of his that I've seen, and it is as steaming a turd as the first. Guy doesn't know the first thing about telling a story, let alone a horror story, let alone putting it to film. All he's doing here is throwing a bunch of "scary" stuff at the screen and calling it a horror flick. En. Azhari, you're a hack, an incompetent, and an utter failure as a filmmaker - and I bet either you or your producer David Teo paid duit kopi to Cinema Online for that review. Why would I make such an unfounded and malicious accusation? Saja.
NEXT REVIEW: Bodyguards and Assassins
Expectations: if it sucks, I'm blaming LoveHKFilm
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Awe-vatar
Avatar
My rating:
James freakin' Cameron. Know who that is? Only the man who directed The Terminator, Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Abyss, and Titanic. Those are some of the best sci-fi films ever made, and some of the best films ever period. It's been an even dozen years since his last movie, and that alone would've made Avatar the most highly anticipated film of the year - but add to that a four-year production, an over-$230-million budget, rumoured revolutionary new SFX technology and rumoured revolutionary new 3D filming technology, and expectations aren't just through the roof, they're through an entire 30-floor skyscraper.
Well, it met them. Didn't exceed them, but very much met them.
It is the year 2154. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic ex-Marine, is made an offer to join a corporate expedition to the planet Pandora. Their mining operation is being threatened by an indigenous race known as the Na'vi, ten-foot-tall blue-skinned humanoids who live in harmony with their environment. Sully gets the chance to operate an "avatar", an artificially-grown Na'vi body whom he controls remotely, who can survive in Pandora's atmosphere. He is nominally part of Dr. Grace Augustine's (Sigourney Weaver) scientific team, but the ruthless Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) orders him to infiltrate the Na'vi to learn their weaknesses. Sully gets his chance when he meets Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and is introduced to the rest of her Na'vi clan - and soon finds himself falling in love with her, as well as with their native way of life. But Quaritch grows more and more hostile and callous, and soon Sully must decide where his loyalties lie.
Y'know, it didn't occur to me till I was writing that synopsis above, that this is a pretty complicated story. So many concepts and ideas, so much backstory, and I haven't even mentioned a great many other supporting characters - Tsu'Tey (Laz Alonso), a Na'vi warrior and rival for Neytiri's affections; Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore), Sully's fellow avatar operator; Trudy Chacon (Michelle Rodriguez), a Marine combat pilot sympathetic towards Sully, Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), the weaselly corporate drone; and more. So it's a credit to the film that none of this is confusing or overwhelming; you are effortlessly immersed into the story and the world.
And woo boy, is immersive ever the key word here. Pandora is a world, stunningly beautiful and vibrantly, gloriously alive. A good part of the four-year production was spent working out the look, the ecology, and the flora and fauna of Pandora, and their efforts all pay off handsomely; not since Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy has there been such a well-realised cinematic world. (The Na'vi even have their own native language, developed by linguists.) And it's all brought to life with some of the most seamless CGI effects ever. Were you not impressed by the trailers? Did you think they still looked a bit rough, a bit fake, like a videogame cutscene? That's because they were still being rendered. Those were WIP shots, folks. The final product has all the kinks and bumps smoothed out, and everything looks perfectly, flawlessly real.
And that includes the Na'vi. Okay, I shouldn't really gush too much, the performance-capture hasn't quite matched the quality of a real-life actor yet. But good gravy, Cameron has come closer than anyone so far. Sam Worthington is not the most expressive actor, but his avatar self still captures the nuances of his performance in a more convincing manner than I've ever seen - and I'm a tough one to convince. And then there's Neytiri. Zoe Saldana's performance is fiery and passionate; she is alternately angry, mischievous, ecstatic, heartbroken and fiercely badass, and both actor and CGI combine to create one of the best digital creations ever put on screen. The rest of the Na'vi - Tsu'Tey, or Eytucan and Mo'at, chief and high priestess of the tribe respectively - are just as impressive. I could hardly recognise veteran character actors Wes Studi and CCH Pounder in the latter two roles. Whatever Cameron did different than Robert Zemeckis, it beats A Christmas Carol easily.
And then there's the 3D. Yes, it is worth the extra 8 bucks or so to watch it in 3D, although I wouldn't say it's essential. It's never used as a gimmick; no deliberate shots of things flying or jumping at the screen, so if you were wowed by Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D and want more of the same, you might be disappointed. What it's used for is, again, to immerse you in the story and the world - and it works at that. It's fun watching a typically masterful Cameron-directed action scene in 3D, but what impressed me the most were quiet scenes of people sitting around and talking; you can clearly perceive the depth of field between the characters, the furniture, and every object in the shot. And it is very much not blurry or dim like my other 3D viewing experience, which is exactly what I expected from Cameron.
And that's what you can expect from Cameron - a masterful technical, technological, even aesthetic, achievement. And here's where I talk about the film as a story, which isn't as successful as the nuts-and-bolts aspects, and which is where it fails to exceed expectations. It drags. The midsection feels long and drawn-out, and I felt myself waiting a little impatiently for the next big action setpiece. And I think this is because the plot is - has become - too formulaic. It's basically Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai all over again, even a bit of Ferngully and Pocahontas sprinkled in. The film's midpoint is where the plot kicks into gear, when Quaritch and Selfridge finally start open hostilities with the Na'vi, and we all knew it was coming. And we all know a massive, all-out, nature vs. technology, natives vs. imperialists, bows-and-arrows-and-horses-and-flying-dragons vs. guns-and-planes-and-ships-and-mechs battle is coming, but it's taking its own sweet time to get there.
Cameron says the idea for this film has been in his head since 1994, and here's where it shows. The technology may be sparkling and new, but the story is somewhat tired. Even the oh-so-noble-savage Na'vi feel like a cliche, as does the we-must-be-one-with-nature theme. And I wonder when exactly it was that Cameron forgot how to write great dialogue. Aliens, Terminator 2 and True Lies had heaps of quotable lines; here, none. Not even in Sully's speech to the Na'vi to rouse them to war. "We will send them a message - that this... this is our land!" doesn't compare with "They may take our lives... but they will never take our freedom!" Or "But it is not this day! This day we fight!" Or "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" Or even "We will not go quietly into the night!" Why yes, I am very fond of this trope. And yes, Avatar disappointed me in this regard.
But see those three-and-a-half stars? That still means it's a very, very good movie. It is, in fact, an awesome movie. It is chock-full of awesome. The shuttle landing on Pandora was awesome. The mechs patrolling the base grounds were awesome. The first scene with Sully's and Norm's avatars is awesome. Sully's first encounter with Pandoran wildlife is awesome. Neytiri is awesome. The quirky, glowing Pandoran flora are awesome. The floating mountains are awesome. Sully learning the Na'vi ways from Neytiri is awesome. The taming of the flying dragon steeds is aaawwwwesooomme. I spent so much of the running time with my mouth open, my throat was dry when I left the cinema. This is the most spectacular film you'll see all year, and you owe it to yourself to catch it just for that.
And it's still James freakin' Cameron after all, not goddamn Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich. He may be a technical whiz, but he's still miles better at telling a story than either of those two hacks. Even if the story is formulaic and predictable, it's still told with far better care and heart than most directors who aren't also technical whizzes. I can almost forgive him for the dragginess, because he's using that time to ensure the maximum dramatic impact of the story's beats - Quaritch's first attack on the Na'vi, the avatar team's dismay at being shut down, Neytiri's feelings of betrayal toward Jake. It's a spectacular film, but it is in no way empty spectacle. On a scene-by-scene basis, there's nothing that doesn't work exactly as it's meant to - whether to wow you with cool visuals, thrill you with an action scene, make you laugh with a snarky line or sight gag, or make you angry at callous destruction and cruelty.
And he's pretty damn good with actors - flesh-and-blood ones - too. There's never a bad performance in a Cameron film, and always plenty of great ones. Worthington may be a little wooden, but he gives the film a grounding in reality that helps offset the fantastical settings and happenings. Saldana is, as mentioned, terrific, and I hope she doesn't miss out on the recognition she deserves just because Neytiri doesn't look like her. Sigourney Weaver is as good as ever, and it's nice to see Michelle Rodriguez in a role where she actually smiles. But the standout performance is definitely Stephen Lang's. Colonel Quaritch is a badass mofo from his very first scene; he starts out as someone you admire, then slowly and surely becomes a totally hissable villain. Lang plays him with just the right touch of larger-than-life that never crosses the line into over-the-top.
And this is getting to be the longest review I've written yet, but this film deserves it. If it were an unqualified triumph, I wouldn't even have so much to say; I'd just rave about it. But the first James Cameron film in twelve years is just that intricate a film, exhaustive a subject, and momentous an event. So yes, not an unqualified triumph, but undeniably a triumph. And hey! Is there not talk of a sequel already? Now this is something to look forward to - the same world, the same characters, the same technical perfection, but a whole new story. But first, go watch this. Go watch it now. (And try to watch it in 3D.) It is the film of the year. Even if it's not - in my not-so-humble opinion - the best.
Update: Rating revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.
NEXT REVIEW: Santau
Expectations: siiiiggghh
My rating:
James freakin' Cameron. Know who that is? Only the man who directed The Terminator, Aliens, Terminator 2: Judgment Day, The Abyss, and Titanic. Those are some of the best sci-fi films ever made, and some of the best films ever period. It's been an even dozen years since his last movie, and that alone would've made Avatar the most highly anticipated film of the year - but add to that a four-year production, an over-$230-million budget, rumoured revolutionary new SFX technology and rumoured revolutionary new 3D filming technology, and expectations aren't just through the roof, they're through an entire 30-floor skyscraper.
Well, it met them. Didn't exceed them, but very much met them.
It is the year 2154. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), a paraplegic ex-Marine, is made an offer to join a corporate expedition to the planet Pandora. Their mining operation is being threatened by an indigenous race known as the Na'vi, ten-foot-tall blue-skinned humanoids who live in harmony with their environment. Sully gets the chance to operate an "avatar", an artificially-grown Na'vi body whom he controls remotely, who can survive in Pandora's atmosphere. He is nominally part of Dr. Grace Augustine's (Sigourney Weaver) scientific team, but the ruthless Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) orders him to infiltrate the Na'vi to learn their weaknesses. Sully gets his chance when he meets Neytiri (Zoe Saldana), and is introduced to the rest of her Na'vi clan - and soon finds himself falling in love with her, as well as with their native way of life. But Quaritch grows more and more hostile and callous, and soon Sully must decide where his loyalties lie.
Y'know, it didn't occur to me till I was writing that synopsis above, that this is a pretty complicated story. So many concepts and ideas, so much backstory, and I haven't even mentioned a great many other supporting characters - Tsu'Tey (Laz Alonso), a Na'vi warrior and rival for Neytiri's affections; Norm Spellman (Joel David Moore), Sully's fellow avatar operator; Trudy Chacon (Michelle Rodriguez), a Marine combat pilot sympathetic towards Sully, Parker Selfridge (Giovanni Ribisi), the weaselly corporate drone; and more. So it's a credit to the film that none of this is confusing or overwhelming; you are effortlessly immersed into the story and the world.
And woo boy, is immersive ever the key word here. Pandora is a world, stunningly beautiful and vibrantly, gloriously alive. A good part of the four-year production was spent working out the look, the ecology, and the flora and fauna of Pandora, and their efforts all pay off handsomely; not since Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy has there been such a well-realised cinematic world. (The Na'vi even have their own native language, developed by linguists.) And it's all brought to life with some of the most seamless CGI effects ever. Were you not impressed by the trailers? Did you think they still looked a bit rough, a bit fake, like a videogame cutscene? That's because they were still being rendered. Those were WIP shots, folks. The final product has all the kinks and bumps smoothed out, and everything looks perfectly, flawlessly real.
And that includes the Na'vi. Okay, I shouldn't really gush too much, the performance-capture hasn't quite matched the quality of a real-life actor yet. But good gravy, Cameron has come closer than anyone so far. Sam Worthington is not the most expressive actor, but his avatar self still captures the nuances of his performance in a more convincing manner than I've ever seen - and I'm a tough one to convince. And then there's Neytiri. Zoe Saldana's performance is fiery and passionate; she is alternately angry, mischievous, ecstatic, heartbroken and fiercely badass, and both actor and CGI combine to create one of the best digital creations ever put on screen. The rest of the Na'vi - Tsu'Tey, or Eytucan and Mo'at, chief and high priestess of the tribe respectively - are just as impressive. I could hardly recognise veteran character actors Wes Studi and CCH Pounder in the latter two roles. Whatever Cameron did different than Robert Zemeckis, it beats A Christmas Carol easily.
And then there's the 3D. Yes, it is worth the extra 8 bucks or so to watch it in 3D, although I wouldn't say it's essential. It's never used as a gimmick; no deliberate shots of things flying or jumping at the screen, so if you were wowed by Monsters vs. Aliens in 3D and want more of the same, you might be disappointed. What it's used for is, again, to immerse you in the story and the world - and it works at that. It's fun watching a typically masterful Cameron-directed action scene in 3D, but what impressed me the most were quiet scenes of people sitting around and talking; you can clearly perceive the depth of field between the characters, the furniture, and every object in the shot. And it is very much not blurry or dim like my other 3D viewing experience, which is exactly what I expected from Cameron.
And that's what you can expect from Cameron - a masterful technical, technological, even aesthetic, achievement. And here's where I talk about the film as a story, which isn't as successful as the nuts-and-bolts aspects, and which is where it fails to exceed expectations. It drags. The midsection feels long and drawn-out, and I felt myself waiting a little impatiently for the next big action setpiece. And I think this is because the plot is - has become - too formulaic. It's basically Dances with Wolves and The Last Samurai all over again, even a bit of Ferngully and Pocahontas sprinkled in. The film's midpoint is where the plot kicks into gear, when Quaritch and Selfridge finally start open hostilities with the Na'vi, and we all knew it was coming. And we all know a massive, all-out, nature vs. technology, natives vs. imperialists, bows-and-arrows-and-horses-and-flying-dragons vs. guns-and-planes-and-ships-and-mechs battle is coming, but it's taking its own sweet time to get there.
Cameron says the idea for this film has been in his head since 1994, and here's where it shows. The technology may be sparkling and new, but the story is somewhat tired. Even the oh-so-noble-savage Na'vi feel like a cliche, as does the we-must-be-one-with-nature theme. And I wonder when exactly it was that Cameron forgot how to write great dialogue. Aliens, Terminator 2 and True Lies had heaps of quotable lines; here, none. Not even in Sully's speech to the Na'vi to rouse them to war. "We will send them a message - that this... this is our land!" doesn't compare with "They may take our lives... but they will never take our freedom!" Or "But it is not this day! This day we fight!" Or "The line must be drawn here! This far, no further!" Or even "We will not go quietly into the night!" Why yes, I am very fond of this trope. And yes, Avatar disappointed me in this regard.
But see those three-and-a-half stars? That still means it's a very, very good movie. It is, in fact, an awesome movie. It is chock-full of awesome. The shuttle landing on Pandora was awesome. The mechs patrolling the base grounds were awesome. The first scene with Sully's and Norm's avatars is awesome. Sully's first encounter with Pandoran wildlife is awesome. Neytiri is awesome. The quirky, glowing Pandoran flora are awesome. The floating mountains are awesome. Sully learning the Na'vi ways from Neytiri is awesome. The taming of the flying dragon steeds is aaawwwwesooomme. I spent so much of the running time with my mouth open, my throat was dry when I left the cinema. This is the most spectacular film you'll see all year, and you owe it to yourself to catch it just for that.
And it's still James freakin' Cameron after all, not goddamn Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich. He may be a technical whiz, but he's still miles better at telling a story than either of those two hacks. Even if the story is formulaic and predictable, it's still told with far better care and heart than most directors who aren't also technical whizzes. I can almost forgive him for the dragginess, because he's using that time to ensure the maximum dramatic impact of the story's beats - Quaritch's first attack on the Na'vi, the avatar team's dismay at being shut down, Neytiri's feelings of betrayal toward Jake. It's a spectacular film, but it is in no way empty spectacle. On a scene-by-scene basis, there's nothing that doesn't work exactly as it's meant to - whether to wow you with cool visuals, thrill you with an action scene, make you laugh with a snarky line or sight gag, or make you angry at callous destruction and cruelty.
And he's pretty damn good with actors - flesh-and-blood ones - too. There's never a bad performance in a Cameron film, and always plenty of great ones. Worthington may be a little wooden, but he gives the film a grounding in reality that helps offset the fantastical settings and happenings. Saldana is, as mentioned, terrific, and I hope she doesn't miss out on the recognition she deserves just because Neytiri doesn't look like her. Sigourney Weaver is as good as ever, and it's nice to see Michelle Rodriguez in a role where she actually smiles. But the standout performance is definitely Stephen Lang's. Colonel Quaritch is a badass mofo from his very first scene; he starts out as someone you admire, then slowly and surely becomes a totally hissable villain. Lang plays him with just the right touch of larger-than-life that never crosses the line into over-the-top.
And this is getting to be the longest review I've written yet, but this film deserves it. If it were an unqualified triumph, I wouldn't even have so much to say; I'd just rave about it. But the first James Cameron film in twelve years is just that intricate a film, exhaustive a subject, and momentous an event. So yes, not an unqualified triumph, but undeniably a triumph. And hey! Is there not talk of a sequel already? Now this is something to look forward to - the same world, the same characters, the same technical perfection, but a whole new story. But first, go watch this. Go watch it now. (And try to watch it in 3D.) It is the film of the year. Even if it's not - in my not-so-humble opinion - the best.
Update: Rating revised to reflect my new five-star rating scale.
NEXT REVIEW: Santau
Expectations: siiiiggghh
Thursday, December 17, 2009
2D is still groovy
The Princess and the Frog
My rating:
I watched Aladdin only about a year ago. That'd be the 1992 Disney animated version, the one that came between Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Yes, I'm quite the slow poke, but I have to say I didn't much like it. Beauty was gorgeous and sweeping, Lion King was epic, but I found Aladdin kiddish and cliched. I've watched only a couple more Disney traditionally-animated films since then, and while I enjoyed them, I wasn't too upset when they announced that 2004's Home on the Range (which I didn't catch) would be their last movie to employ hand-drawn animation. Of course it was dumb of them to blame an entire medium for their last few movies' lack of success, but it wasn't just the medium; Disney's entire approach to animated storytelling had just become too tired and formulaic.
The Princess and the Frog proves there's still life, not just in the medium, but in the formula itself.
It is 1920s New Orleans, and Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) is a waitress who cares only about working hard and saving up to fulfill her late father's dream - opening her own restaurant. When Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) visits the city, her wealthy friend Charlotte (Jennifer Cody) is excited at the prospect of becoming his princess, but Tiana couldn't care less. Unfortunately, the fun-loving and irresponsible prince runs afoul of Dr. Facilier (Keith David), a voodoo witch doctor who turns him into a frog while Naveen's servant Lawrence (Peter Bartlett) impersonates him as part of Facilier's plot to take over the city. And when the frog prince meets Tiana and persuades her to kiss him... she too turns into a frog. Now they must travel together through the bayou to meet voodoo priestess Mama Odie (Jenifer Lewis) who can help remove the curse, aided by jazz-loving alligator Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley) and lovesick firefly Ray (Jim Cummings).
Credits to Ed Catmull and John Lasseter - president and chief creative officer, respectively, of Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar - for reviving the hand-drawn animated film. And especially to Lasseter, who acts as producer here and whose experience making some of the best 3D-animated films of all time for Pixar must have surely influenced this movie. For those who saw the mid-'90s Disney renaissance come to an ignominous end, the improvements are obvious: a strong and independent heroine, no cute animal sidekicks (Louis and Ray are characters, not cliches shoehorned in for the cute factor), a decent dramatic conflict, an engaging plot, likable characters, and an emphasis on telling a story instead of simply throwing things at the screen to keep the kiddies in their seats.
But it's not like all that is anything new. This is very much the Disney formula through and through, right down to the Broadway musical-style songs (penned by Randy Newman) - it's just executed well. And as my viewing of Aladdin proved, I'm not a big fan of the formula. Frankly, I found the opening scene cloying and sappy, with an oh-so-cute young Tiana and her oh-so-loving family and their oh-so-heartwarming dream. Pixar would never be this corny. And I think I've confirmed once and for all that musicals are my least favourite film genre. I dunno, I just can never suspend my disbelief whenever the characters break into song and start cutting the rug.
So it helps a lot that the song-and-dance sequences are lively and filled with lots of funny sight gags. Which is one thing the Disney formula has always been good at, and this time credits go to directors John Musker and Ron Clements, veterans of Disney traditionally-animated films. The film improves greatly once the plot gets into gear, and Musker and Clements steer it with sure hands and keep the proceedings fun and fast-paced. It's too bad that none of the music is especially memorable; two hours after leaving the cinema, I couldn't remember any of the songs anymore. Randy Newman does a solid job, incorporating jazz, gospel, zydeco and other native New Orleans music - but if you ask me, the last really good soundtrack and score for a Disney animated film was Beauty and the Beast.
But another thing this film gets right is the casting - as in, not getting carried away with stunt casting or letting any particular actor's performance overpower the movie (*coughRobinWilliamsEddieMurphycough*). All the actors do fine work, in both the acting and singing departments. I bet it was tempting to cast some A-list comedians in the comic-relief roles of Louis and Ray, but Michael-Leon Wooley and Jim Cummings are great; Cummings' Cajun accent especially is a hoot. And there's been much ado about the fact that Tiana is Disney's first African-American "princess" - which is apparently some marketing label that targets young girls - but it makes no never mind to us Asians.
So yes, welcome back Walt Disney Animation Studios' hand-drawn animation unit. It's good to know you haven't lost the knack for making films that are funny, thrilling, heartwarming, romantic, and greatly entertaining - in other words, the Disney formula. But even though they've breathed new life into it, I wonder how long they can keep it going. Even if this starts a new Disney renaissance, how long can they make it last before another Treasure Planet or Brother Bear or Home on the Range brings it to an end again? 'Cos after all, it's not the medium that's the problem, it's the stories. And you can't keep telling the same story over and over again.
NEXT REVIEW: Avatar
Expectations: James freakin' Cameron wooo
My rating:
I watched Aladdin only about a year ago. That'd be the 1992 Disney animated version, the one that came between Beauty and the Beast and The Lion King. Yes, I'm quite the slow poke, but I have to say I didn't much like it. Beauty was gorgeous and sweeping, Lion King was epic, but I found Aladdin kiddish and cliched. I've watched only a couple more Disney traditionally-animated films since then, and while I enjoyed them, I wasn't too upset when they announced that 2004's Home on the Range (which I didn't catch) would be their last movie to employ hand-drawn animation. Of course it was dumb of them to blame an entire medium for their last few movies' lack of success, but it wasn't just the medium; Disney's entire approach to animated storytelling had just become too tired and formulaic.
The Princess and the Frog proves there's still life, not just in the medium, but in the formula itself.
It is 1920s New Orleans, and Tiana (Anika Noni Rose) is a waitress who cares only about working hard and saving up to fulfill her late father's dream - opening her own restaurant. When Prince Naveen (Bruno Campos) visits the city, her wealthy friend Charlotte (Jennifer Cody) is excited at the prospect of becoming his princess, but Tiana couldn't care less. Unfortunately, the fun-loving and irresponsible prince runs afoul of Dr. Facilier (Keith David), a voodoo witch doctor who turns him into a frog while Naveen's servant Lawrence (Peter Bartlett) impersonates him as part of Facilier's plot to take over the city. And when the frog prince meets Tiana and persuades her to kiss him... she too turns into a frog. Now they must travel together through the bayou to meet voodoo priestess Mama Odie (Jenifer Lewis) who can help remove the curse, aided by jazz-loving alligator Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley) and lovesick firefly Ray (Jim Cummings).
Credits to Ed Catmull and John Lasseter - president and chief creative officer, respectively, of Walt Disney Animation Studios and Pixar - for reviving the hand-drawn animated film. And especially to Lasseter, who acts as producer here and whose experience making some of the best 3D-animated films of all time for Pixar must have surely influenced this movie. For those who saw the mid-'90s Disney renaissance come to an ignominous end, the improvements are obvious: a strong and independent heroine, no cute animal sidekicks (Louis and Ray are characters, not cliches shoehorned in for the cute factor), a decent dramatic conflict, an engaging plot, likable characters, and an emphasis on telling a story instead of simply throwing things at the screen to keep the kiddies in their seats.
But it's not like all that is anything new. This is very much the Disney formula through and through, right down to the Broadway musical-style songs (penned by Randy Newman) - it's just executed well. And as my viewing of Aladdin proved, I'm not a big fan of the formula. Frankly, I found the opening scene cloying and sappy, with an oh-so-cute young Tiana and her oh-so-loving family and their oh-so-heartwarming dream. Pixar would never be this corny. And I think I've confirmed once and for all that musicals are my least favourite film genre. I dunno, I just can never suspend my disbelief whenever the characters break into song and start cutting the rug.
So it helps a lot that the song-and-dance sequences are lively and filled with lots of funny sight gags. Which is one thing the Disney formula has always been good at, and this time credits go to directors John Musker and Ron Clements, veterans of Disney traditionally-animated films. The film improves greatly once the plot gets into gear, and Musker and Clements steer it with sure hands and keep the proceedings fun and fast-paced. It's too bad that none of the music is especially memorable; two hours after leaving the cinema, I couldn't remember any of the songs anymore. Randy Newman does a solid job, incorporating jazz, gospel, zydeco and other native New Orleans music - but if you ask me, the last really good soundtrack and score for a Disney animated film was Beauty and the Beast.
But another thing this film gets right is the casting - as in, not getting carried away with stunt casting or letting any particular actor's performance overpower the movie (*coughRobinWilliamsEddieMurphycough*). All the actors do fine work, in both the acting and singing departments. I bet it was tempting to cast some A-list comedians in the comic-relief roles of Louis and Ray, but Michael-Leon Wooley and Jim Cummings are great; Cummings' Cajun accent especially is a hoot. And there's been much ado about the fact that Tiana is Disney's first African-American "princess" - which is apparently some marketing label that targets young girls - but it makes no never mind to us Asians.
So yes, welcome back Walt Disney Animation Studios' hand-drawn animation unit. It's good to know you haven't lost the knack for making films that are funny, thrilling, heartwarming, romantic, and greatly entertaining - in other words, the Disney formula. But even though they've breathed new life into it, I wonder how long they can keep it going. Even if this starts a new Disney renaissance, how long can they make it last before another Treasure Planet or Brother Bear or Home on the Range brings it to an end again? 'Cos after all, it's not the medium that's the problem, it's the stories. And you can't keep telling the same story over and over again.
NEXT REVIEW: Avatar
Expectations: James freakin' Cameron wooo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
