Yuhui's Movie Blogger

"Man of Steel"

2013-06-15T17:27:00.002+08:00

What I liked:

The many flashback scenes – classic Americana with a touch of humanity.
God-like depictions of Clark Kent / Superman.
Personal moments between Superman and Lois Lane.
Fight scenes – really showed off Superman's strength and invulnerability.
Soundtrack.

What I disliked:

Dark colour tone of suit – Superman should be bright and cheery.
Too much property damage – Superman would know better to bring the fight to a less densely populated place.
Too easy for Clark to believe Jor-El after a lifetime of doubt.
Jor-El died before the destruction of Krypton – WWWWRRROOOONNNNGGGG!!!!
The rebooted militaristic / sci-fi origin – I personally detest the new Mark Waid / Geoff Johns version, in favour of the more classic John Byrne one.
Weak supporting characters – more focus on unknown military characters than classic Superman family (Perry White, "Jenny" Olsen).

"The Avengers": How I would improve it

2012-05-21T00:06:00.001+08:00

I finally got around to watching "The Avengers" last weekend, two weeks after it opened here in Singapore. It was mainly to avoid the crowds that would be expected for this blockbuster, and also to let the hype die down.

Before watching it, I had overheard from many people that it was a great movie. And the box office takings seemed to prove it. But for every 10 people who talked about the movie, there was always that one person who didn't rave about it.

After watching the movie, I think I'm one of that 10%. Yes, the movie was a visual feast and the characters were fun to watch on screen. But there were moments where I either felt that the movie didn't gel well, or huge plot holes that the Hulk could run through.

So here are three things that I would've done to make the movie feel better.

1. A more consistently heroic Hulk
The Hulk was truly well conceived here, much better than his last two solo movie outings. It was in part because Mark Ruffalo played him so easily. But it was also because the Hulk was depicted as a real hero instead of a Mr Hyde personality.

Well, he was a hero half of the time. The first time we saw the Hulk in "Avengers", he reverted to the role of villain. He smashed through the SHIELD helicarrier, chasing after Avengers ally, Black Widow. His main motivation was that someone had attacked him and he lashed out at the person closest to him, i.e. the Widow. This was in spite of her attempting to calm Bruce Banner down before he hulked out.

My improvement:
Bruce Banner still hulks out while Black Widow is trying to soothe him. But instead of fixating on her, the Hulk realizes that they are being attacked by Loki's forces. So he charges after them. Except that because he's a big ol' brute, he inadvertently destroys half of the SHIELD helicarrier in his rampage.

That still allows Loki to achieve his nefarious end of using the Hulk to cripple SHIELD. But it also depicts him as a hero. It also allows for Thor to go after him. Thor could be played as not knowing that it's Loki who's playing the Hulk. That would make Thor's distrust of Loki even stronger later in the film. Unfortunately, Thor attacks Hulk, and Hulk strikes back at Thor, and chaos ensues as shown in the movie.

But the Hulk still comes out as the mistaken hero. And it gives a chance for the two strongest Avengers, Thor and the Hulk, to reconcile later before the big battle against Loki and his Chitauri warriors.

2. SHIELD helicarrier swoops in to save the day
For a comic fanboy, it extremely exhilarating to see the SHIELD helicarrier rise up from the ocean. The helicarrier itself defies conventional logic. How can an aircraft carrier be airborne, carried aloft by giant propellers? And yet, there we see it on the big-screen. It is the moment when you believe that man can really achieve the remarkable.

And then the the greatest invention ever gets damaged by the Hulk. From then on, it just limps aimlessly, never seen again in its full glory. That was a huge letdown. The setup was there to show off man's greatest weapon… and it was left to lie idle.

My improvement:
To understand my improvement, you need to watch "Star Trek" by J.J. Abrams. During the climax, Spock is fleeing in his little ship with enemy missiles hot on his trail. It seems like all hope is lost and the hero is going to die.

Then out of nowhere, the Enterprise appears, guns blazing, destroying every single missile, allowing Spock to fight on. It is that moment -- when the Enterprise saves the day -- that brings the crowd to its feet, cheering loudly for the grand ship.

That's what should have happened with the helicarrier. During the battle in Manhattan, flying sea monster-like things flew in, smashing every building in their paths. They were immense monstrosities and the heroes looked outgunned.

It was at that moment that the SHIELD helicarrier should have made its grand entrance, guns a-blazing, missiles flying everywhere, and destroying these enemy flying machines. Nick Fury, at his console, would tell the Avengers that SHIELD has got the flying machines covered allowing them to focus on the real enemy, Loki.

I know that Joss Whedon needed to show the Avengers kicking alien ass. But he didn't need to make it a half hour super-hero slugfest. Especially when he had the ace in his sleeve, the SHIELD helicarrier. That was truly a wasted moment of human triumph.

3. Captain America's shield used to destroy the tessaract machine
There is one moment when Captain America is fighting the Chitauri warriors. One of them fires its gun at him. Cap instinctively raises his shield to protect himself. The weapon discharge ricochets off the shield harmlessly. Cap then has this look on his face that seems to say, "Holy shit, my shield can disrupt the enemy's weapon energies!"

And then he goes back to punching enemies and swinging his shield everywhere.

So either Chris Evans was a really bad actor or Joss Whedon didn't play through as expected. Captain America's shield is supposedly made of some kind of metal that can deflect almost anything. And he uses it simply either as a protective shield or a boomerang.

My improvement:
When Captain America realized what his shield could do, and when Black Widow needed to disrupt the energy shield surrounding Loki's tessaract machine, then that should have been the prime opening needed for American ingenuity -- as defined by Captain America's shield -- to win the day. After all, what is a more American weapon than the one used by the symbol of America itself?

But I guess Captain America needed to be shown as a warrior fighting with his fists, then as a brilliant field leader who knows when to employ the right tools for the task. And so the opportunity was wasted. Instead, the audience had to make do with believing that you need to fight fire with fire, i.e. use Loki's staff to penetrate the energy shield and destroy his own tessaract machine.

So those are the three things I would have done to improve "The Avengers". And if those three aren't enough, then here are two more that would have fleshed out the characters more:

Captain America and Iron Man could have bonded over Howard Stark. Tony "Iron Man" Stark had father issues with Howard, while Steve "Captain America" Rogers had Howard as his father figure. I think it would have been quite neat to see how the two heroes related over the same man. And I think that would be better than for them to bond over fixing a helicarrier propeller.
Maria Hill, Nick Fury's second-in-command, should've been shown as more of a leader than a soldier. A good second-in-command makes the decisions and gives the orders that the leader doesn't need to give. For example, when the helicarrier was failing from its damage, Maria Hill should've taken charge to direct the repairs, leaving Nick Fury free to concentrate on turning the situation to their advantage. Unfortunately, she was seen as simply taking orders from Fury all of the time. That was really wasted of her character.

Having said all that, "The Avengers" is still an enjoyable popcorn movie. And if nothing else, it is immensely satisfying to see the Hulk… smash.

--

Review: "Immortals"

2011-11-19T13:47:00.001+08:00

Thanks to omy.sg, I had the opportunity to watch a preview of "Immortals" on Tuesday (it opened in cinemas everywhere on Thursday). We were treated to the 3D version of the movie at Lido.

Right after the movie, my first thought was "ugh". This show was truly a letdown in all of the important aspects - story, characters, acting, ending. Even Henry Cavill, in what was probably his first demonstration of what he will look like in the upcoming "Man of Steel", could not save the picture.

I didn't know anything about this movie before watching it. But I'm a fan of Greek mythology and thought it would be a good change from the usual modern fare. On the other hand, I was wary from "Clash of the Titans", which not only failed as a retelling of Greek mythology, but as a remake of the original classic.

And so I was disappointed by "Immortals" as well. It tells the story of legendary hero, Theseus, who rose from a lowly peasant (with great muscles and abs) to a warrior leader against the mad warrior king, Hyperion, played by Mickey Rourke. Along the way, he gets to bed a virgin oracle, acted by Frieda Pinto, and becomes a spectator to a fight between the Greek gods and their opponents, the Titans.

All of which never really happened in the Greek mythology. Theseus didn't die in the battle, he went on to become king of Greece. There was no such character of Hyperion. The Titans weren't a bunch of nameless grey-skinned jungle warriors. And the Greek gods weren't killed in action.

Putting all of that aside, there was little else to like about the movie too. Henry Cavill showed us what we can expect Superman to look like next year, with his well-defined muscles and clean fighting style. But the character of Theseus was written in a shallow manner, where events seemed to fall neatly into place for him. Mickey Rourke, a fine actor in his own right, was as wasted here as he was in "Iron Man 2". The filmmakers could have replaced him with an animatron that spoke in guttural voices and still achieved the same result. And all that Frieda Pinto had to do was to look innocent with her big round eyes.

And the Greek gods... oh geez! When you have an entire pantheon of gods to use in battle, why settle for just five?? And they were so mild and nonchalant about events that it was difficult to like them. In truth, they and the Titans were merely sideshows to Theseus and Hyperion's conflict. These were not the gods that I grew up reading about.

If there was one thing that saved the movie, it was the special effects. The 3D effect wasn't the in-your-face type, with spears and stones thrown at the audience. Instead, it was used subtly to make foreground characters appear more clearly and life-like. It kind of reminds me of how Walt Disney achieved a similar effect with his cartoons. The other CGI effects were quite good too, including the fight scenes between the Greek gods and the Titans, which reminded me of Zack Snyder's films, "300" and "Watchmen".

But really, you don't pay good money to watch special effects. And that's why I wouldn't advise anyone to watch this movie. If you must watch Henry Cavill, wait for "Man of Steel" or catch him in the Showtime TV series, "The Tudors". If you must watch Frieda Pinto, watch "Slumdog Millionaire". And for Mickey Rourke, stick with "The Wrestler" and "Sin City".

Just forget about this show. "Immortals" is a film that will not be remembered forever.

--

Invitation to launch of Shaw Premiere at Nex

2011-02-18T00:28:00.001+08:00

Here's a short review of Shaw Premiere at Nex, the local cinema chain's entrance into the "luxurious movie-going experience" segment. (Disclaimer: I had been invited to this pre-launch event by Omy.)

Firstly, the tickets are already unique. Instead of the regular card stock, Shaw Premiere tickets are printed on silver-foil card stock. Unfortunately, the contrast of the black ink may not be clear enough if you've poor eyesight, but otherwise, it's a very noticeable indication that this is a different experience.

At the second floor, there's a large dining area for Shaw Premiere customers. Here, you can have a casual meal before the movie. Ushers are at your beck and call.

Meal prices are about $10 or more. Snacks, like popcorn, are $5 or more. Drinks are about $4-5. (Prices are based on what I can remember.)

An usher will also lead you to the cinema hall at the rear. I counted about 70 seats in neat pairs. The soft, comfortable, cushiony seats feature leather upholstery and reclining ability. Note: if you're 1.7m or taller, you should curl your legs up before reclining, otherwise your feet could get trapped!

There are also individual woolen blankets, like the type used in airplanes. These turned out to be really useful because the hall is quite cold. I felt very comfortable all bundled up.

Couples might be disappointed by the seats though -- there's a sturdy, non-removable arm rest between the seats. No hanky-panky allowed when under covers!

You can also order food and drinks while watching your movie. Pressing a little button on the table will summon an usher/waiter.

The movie viewing experience itself was quite good. The movie we watched, "Rabbit Hole", wasn't in digital format, so I can't really tell if Shaw Premiere boasts a better film projector and screen. The sound quality was similar to that at regular cinema halls, though then again, "Rabbit Hole" didn't have a lot of explosive sounds, so the sound system wasn't put to the test.

After the movie, instead of being led to some non-descript staircase, you exit back through the dining area. Which is a good way to end a luxurious movie experience at Shaw Cinema at Nex.

(All pictures are from Shaw Cinema, because (1) we weren't allowed to take pictures inside the cinema hall and (2) I don't have a good camera myself.)

--

Review: "TRON: Legacy"

2010-12-26T16:45:00.001+08:00

I had the chance to watch "TRON: Legacy" on its opening day here in Singapore. Initially, I wasn't sure if I wanted to watch it, because all I knew about the show was about a guy who gets sucked into a video game (or so I thought).

Thank goodness I did watch it.

Firstly, yes, there's no video game involved. "TRON: Legacy" tells the story of a rebellious young man, Sam Flynn, who is pulled into the digitized world of The Grid and has to fight his way out without giving his enemy, CLU, the chance to break out as well. Along the way, he also has to rescue his father, Kevin Flynn, who has been trapped in The Grid for more than 20 years.

Not having watched the original "TRON", I had no idea of what happened before. Fortunately, the story in "TRON: Legacy" stands on its own. What happened before is filled in ably through flashbacks. Anyway, there's very little connection between this sequel and the original story, aside from the name.

(Incidentally, I watched "TRON" after this and thus have a better understanding of the relationship between the humans (or "user") and their programmatic creations, which appear as avatars in the digitized world. Oh, and I couldn't help laughing at the silliness of the original film.)

Naturally, computer graphics were used extensively in depicting The Grid, including the various action sequences. The Grid came across as a very dark, dystopian world, much darker than what The Matrix movies had. I thought that this went against the nature of Disney movies, which being family-friendly are usually very bright and cheery movies. But the darkness helped to accentuate the nifty lighting effects, whether in the characters' suits or in their lightcycles or even during the fight sequences. Also, the gloomy environment also served to illustrate the corruption of The Grid by CLU.

It was eerie to see Jeff Bridges look so young in the character of CLU. Thanks to the wonders of digital graphics, Bridges' youth was immortalized in CLU. Though CLU did seem plasticky at times, you could still tell that it was Bridges doing all of the acting and not some computer animation. Considering how much screen time CLU had, I really have to hand it to the computer whizzes for a job well done in this area.

The biggest disappointment had nothing to do with the computer graphics or other digital wizardry. Rather, it was in the ending. Tron, the title character, had a chance to redeem himself in the climactic fight. Instead, we had a deux ex machina in Jeff Bridges' Kevin Flynn, who channeled his godly powers to deliver the final crushing blow. In spite of the movie's title, the character of Tron never appeared aside from brief flashbacks. This was even though Tron was described as the ultimate good guy and "uber" digital fighter at the start of the movie. I think I wasn't the only one left the cinema hall scratching my head over Tron's absence.

But that about sums up this movie. It is filled with a lot of glitzy graphics and impressive action scenes, but the story was very flimsy, as if written by an amateur. I'd watch this again just to marvel at the advanced graphics and animation and see just how far the technology has come.

--

Review: "하녀 (The Housemaid)"

2010-11-10T22:52:00.003+08:00

Thanks to omy.sg, I had the opportunity to catch a preview of "하녀" (or, in English, "The Housemaid"). This was the first Korean drama movie that I was going to watch, so given what I knew about Korean shows, I expected something that was dragged out and emotional.

I was not let down. The pace was glacial compared to what I'm used to with mainstream Hollwood fare. There was also much less dialogue, though fortunately no intercut scenes of people staring at one another. However, the easy-to-understand plot and moments of humour helped to make the film very watchable, even for one who doesn't normally watch Korean shows. (The last Korean movie I watched is "Sex is Zero", if that means anything about what I know about Korean film.)

The film tells the story of a young and attractive housemaid who sleeps with the man of the house, resulting in dark consequences for her and the family. Apparently, this is a remake of the 1960 movie of the same name. Not having seen the original, I can only judge this modern interpretation of "The Housemaid" on its own.

As the sweet but naive housemaid, Jeon Do-yeon was believable in everything she did, from the way she fawned over the young daughter to her performing of the household chores. I could really feel pity for her when she succumbed to temptation. It's too bad then that the ending was both sudden and a headscratcher. After two hours of playing a traumatized young woman, we were left without seeing her really descend into her madness and subsequent tragic end, and instead "treated" to a 10-minute wrap-up.

On the other hand, I thought that almost all of the characters were plastic. Especially the wife of the family. She was written as very black-and-white. Her mother was supposed to be like an evil witch, but she came across as whiny. And the husband was, I guess, like any Korean man -- manly and detached. The use of money was also too convenient, which resulted in the lack of emotional depth in the story.

The only stand-out actress was Yun Yeo-Jong, who played the senior housemaid. We could see her journey from haughty "elder stateswoman" to a somewhat grandmotherly figure. She was also the one who was responsible for injecting most of the humour into this dark film. Her one nude scene had the amusing effect of making the audience cringe.

One thing that I was confused about had nothing to do with the film itself, but with its rating. For some reason, the Singapore Board of Censorship had slapped it with a R21 rating. However, there was only about five minutes' worth of nudity. The one sex scene was filmed in such close-up that you could only see the waist/butt area of both characters. There was no homosexuality, which in Singapore means an automatic R21 rating. Unless the censors count the scene where two women share a bed as homosexuality, which I regard as two people who have no choice but to share a bed because of their cramped one-room apartment. So I'm curious to know what warranted the R21 rating.

The rating aside, I'd say that this is an enjoyable movie if you're new to Korean films. The plot isn't too convincing, the actors are easy on the eyes, and the cinematography is gorgeous. But be prepared to squirm in your seat as you wonder when the pace will pick up (hint: it doesn't).

Review: "Hush"

2010-09-17T23:30:00.001+08:00

As the credits rolled in the darkened hall after the end of this 22-minute short film, I had only one thought running through my mind:

"This was the worst $7 I had ever spent on a film!"

Though I'm a supporter of made-in-Singapore movies, there are some films that are as bad as any B-grade flick from Hollywood or Europe. And "Hush" is one of them (next to almost every Jack Neo movie ever made).

"Hush" is a locally made short film by Jeremiah R. Oh. It starts off with a family sitting down for dinner, but in the short span of time, you gradually realize that each member is keeping his or her own deep, dark secret. Well, all except the middle daughter.

What makes this film so bad is its failure to live up to its promise. It is definitely raunchy. But there's sex that helps to move a film forward, and there's sex that's there to tease the audience. "Hush" fell into the latter.

I walked away thinking that "Hush" was simply an excuse for Mr. Oh to indulge in watching naked Singaporean women perform for him. There was ample nudity to arouse the common man, but I felt that the short film could have done without it and still tell its so-called story.

The plot itself left me -- and the majority of the audience, judging by the talk that I heard around me -- thinking "What the f--k" in a disappointed way. There was, actually, no story. Instead, there were just bits and pieces of ideas flung onto film and hoping that they all stuck and came together to tell... something.

Also, the long silent panning scenes, which for some irritating reason seem to be a hallmark of Singapore movies, meant that precious film time -- and all the more precious for a short film -- was used up for no good reason, thus leaving the audience with a sense of loss and uncertainty.

I would recommend that you save your $7 for some other entertainment. "Hush" is simply not worth a single cent.

Review: "囡囡 (Girl$)"

2010-09-11T22:56:00.004+08:00

I don't normally watch Chinese movies, let alone Hong Kong ones, because I always feel that they're too slow or too flashy. So when I saw the trailer for "囡囡" (or, in English, "Girl$"), I decided to give it a shot. Of course, it also helped that the show promised some adult content, a suitable visual respite from the doldrums of the daily regiment.

"囡囡" follows the lives of four ladies who work in the Hong Kong lifestyle of "paid dates", or more commonly known as "escorting" in other parts of the world. These girls literally get paid to go on dates with men, and usually end with the romp in bed. Through the four women's stories, we got to see different aspects / reasons for why they -- and all of the other "paid dates" women -- would work in this line. And it's not just for money alone, but even companionship or boredom.

"囡囡" started off quite refreshingly, showing the women going about their work, or even using animated characters. There were even light-hearted moments, such as when Ronnie, who pays customers instead of the other way around, pays one bloke HK$10 instead of the usual HK$1,000.

But unlike that other more well-known movie about a prostitute, "Pretty Women", "囡囡" also exposed the dangers that these women go through. In the opening scene, we already see an escort being murdered and chopped up. Later, we see a man do things to Lin with golf balls in a condom.

The nudity/sex was, indeed, as graphic as promised, with enough exposed breasts to keep the "dirty old men" glued to their seats. The version shown in Singapore was rated R21, the highest rating possible, and was still supposedly cut by censors. Which makes me wonder just how further lurid this film was. But then, "囡囡" was never about the nudity. As the show progressed through its 90 minutes, there was less and less sex, but I was still captivated by the stories of the four women.

And this was in spite of the show never really jolting me with any climactic moments. Sure, there was the moment when Icy realized she had been filmed secretly, or the above-mentioned golf ball scene. But these were played out calmly and steadily, so that they did not elicit any strong feelings. I think that's a strength of the movie, that you intellectually realize that women engage in "paid dating" with both eyes open, as with any other job, but also appreciate that the dangers that they're exposed to are more severe.

"囡囡" ended without a complete closure. Instead of seeing the four women's story threads tied up nicely, as one would expect from Hollywood films, we are presented with even more question marks. One has to live with HIV/AIDS, another looks like she's about to sell her virginity, and so on. In fact, the movie ends with the four women walking in opposite directions, metaphorically showing that though they share the similar line of work, they are still driven by individual choices and experiences.

Even if there were no nudie bits, "囡囡" would still be a satisfactory introduction to the underworld of "paid dates", including its reliance on modern Internet technology like forums and instant messaging. And the movie would also make you want to know more about the motivations and lifestyle of those who live the escort life.

Review: "The A-Team"

2010-06-27T00:43:00.002+08:00

Two weeks ago, a movie about a crack military team was released in Singapore. Still screening at some cinemas, it survived the openings of "Toy Story 3" and "Karate Kid". If you want to see it, and the cinema operators still haven't pulled it from their schedules, then maybe you can watch... "The A-Team"!

Hahaha, okay. That was lame. And if you didn't catch the reference, it's a paraphrasing of the familiar opening monologue to "The A-Team" TV series from the 1980s.

The 2010 remake, starring Liam Neeson and Bradley Cooper, successfully re-captured the spirit and tone of the TV show. The opening 20 minutes showed how the team was brought together, but for the rest of this two-hour flick, you could believe that the four Rangers had been working together for eons.

Anyone going in expecting a story would be sorely disappointed. "The A-Team" is all about adrenaline and action. It is about impractical plans and loud explosions. It is about pulling that last ditch attempt out of the impossible and making it seem like it's all in a day's work.

Even characterizations are stretched thin, but that's all right. The easygoing banter between Faceman, Murdock and B.A. makes for an enjoyable buddy-buddy-buddy film. It is to the actors' credit that they managed to pull this off without looking like acting work. It kind of reminded me of the relationship between Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in the "Lethal Weapon" movies, where it seemed like these long-time friends just happened to be working together in the same movie.

Die-hard fans may be disappointed with some aspects of the movie though. Like Hannibal's indecisiveness and B.A.'s embrace of non-violence. Or *spoiler* the destruction of the black General Motors van in the opening scene. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the relationship between the characters was spot-on and a hoot to watch. Especially the back-and-forth between Murdock and B.A., those sent the audience laughing in stitches.

*spoiler alert!*
Personally, I was disappointed that the final act's grand plan was concocted by Faceman, not Hannibal. It made me have a lower impression of the ever-decisive and scheming leader that was Hannibal. On the other hand, I appreciated that perhaps it was time to "pass the baton" to his second-in-command, Faceman. I'd like to see how that plays out in the sequel, if there's one.
*end spoiler alert*

If the filmmakers' plan was to make a movie that was a fun escape from the humdrum of reality, then, well, I love it when a plan comes together.

--

Review: "Iron Man 2"

2010-04-30T23:54:00.001+08:00

A week before "Iron Man 2" opened, I and a few colleagues who are comics fans decided to watch it together. So it was a double joy for us when we were offered the chance to watch it for free! (And with free hotdog, popcorn and Coke too!) And when the lights dimmed, I waited in eager expectation for the sequel to one of the best comic book movies ever.

It was not to be. And I wasn't alone in thinking that. My colleagues also thought that it could've been better. Yes, it was Iron Man, it was lavish, and it had enough stuff to keep comic book fans thrilled.

But as a movie, I thought that it could've been better. Let me put it this way: it took the better part of the first half of the movie to reach the first fight scene, and that lasted only for five minutes. Yes, it was very cool to see Tony Stark put on his suitcase armour, but I wanted a flat-out, good ol' "hero gets pummeled but gets back to his feet to land the final punch" fight. That didn't happen.

The final, climactic fight scene was similarly unremarkable. In fact, when Whiplash appeared in his full armoured glory, it reminded me of... yup, Obadiah Stane's armour in the first movie. I immediately hoped and prayed that there would be something different about this fight for this sequel. What followed instead was a near play-for-play fight from the first movie, though with two good guys. But the ending was the same: a 10-second deus ex machina.

It wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the movie had not sucked. Instead, the entire first half had Robert Downey Jr portraying a morose, whining Tony Stark. Okay, so he was *spoiler* dying and we were supposed to feel sympathetic for the hero. But this is an action movie, and a comic book movie at that, not an angsty teenage drama! We want heroes, we want villains, we want battles that make us gush and rave after the movie!

Thus, I thought it's a pity that Mickey Rourke was so underutilized. He's a great actor and I believe he could've delivered something spectacular. He just needed a better script that really showed his character's quest for revenge, not as the quiet, brooding type.

Oh, and I still think Terence Howard should've played Jim Rhodes. No offence to Don Cheadle, but Howard, with his bigger frame, projected a greater screen presence needed for the hero, War Machine.

And I really got irritated with Sam Rockwell's fast talking Justin Hammer. He needed to shut up already.

As the credits rolled, I only felt satisfaction for "Iron Man 2", whereas in the first movie, I had felt in awe for the hero. This sequel is great with its special effects, one-third of which were done by the Singapore branch of Lucasfilm Animation. And for the comic book fans, you'd be thrilled by two nuggets *spoiler spoiler*

what looks like Captain America's shield
Thor's hammer in the post-credits extra scene

Review: "2012"

2009-11-13T23:08:00.001+08:00

Firstly, I have to state upfront that I'm not a fan of disaster movies. I simply don't like the idea that the world is going to s**t and there's nothing that man can do except die. So when I got a free ticket to watch "2012", I wasn't exactly thrilled, but I watched it anyway to see if I had overcome my old sentiment.

Nope, I hadn't. I found the entire movie to be, well, boring. Yes, I still felt the sense of hopelessness and depression, especially in the first 30 minutes when the whole Earth basically went belly up. On the other hand, there were only so many scenes of earthquakes, volcanoes and tidal waves that I could stomach.

The planet Earth is the real lead "actor" here. Right from the word "go", she basically flips the bird at humans and decides to recreate herself. Yes, there's all of the scientific jargon about neutrinos and overheating of the core and what-not, but it's really as if Mother Earth had just thrown her hands up in despair with a loud "up yours!"

And so, the audience had to endure scene after scene after scene of disaster upon disaster, each made to look like the previous one was a walk in the park. But I have to say that the computer graphics were quite a spectacle. I mean, has anyone really ever imagined seeing a subway train ride out of a tunnel and into open air? Or a tidal wave flooding over Mount Everest, the tallest freakin' mountain in the world?

Okay, so maybe the effects were over-the-top. I guess that if you're going to make a disaster movie, you might as well get as much mileage out of it as possible. And director Roland Emmerich doesn't let up. Did I mention that I had to sit through half an hour of disaster scenes? That was just the opening. After a brief interlude, we were back to more disasters and wanton destruction.

As a result, the human characters were relegated to playing second fiddle. It didn't help that they were also very one-sided, simplistic characters. The Russian tycoon who ditches his blonde trophy girlfriend? The eager politician who lacks morals? The deadbeat father who rescues his family, always with just a hair's breath? Check, check and check.

Which is why I found the film to be boring. There was nothing substantial at a human level that was on par with the natural disasters. At least when the Titanic sank in James Cameron's film of the same name, we still rooted for Jack and Rose because of their undying love. Here, there was nothing. Just a bunch of people scrambling at their wits' end to survive Mother Earth's fury.

That actually should be a powerful plot for the audience to hang on to, and root for the survivors. But with the actors going through their motions and the film giving way to the effects-laden scenes, I felt that there just wasn't enough emotion or cause for me to support the human characters.

And so, I'd recommend this show only if you really enjoy stuff blowing up. I suggest a "2012: Disaster edit" where you just watch the scenes of destruction, of which there are many with lots of CGI "eye candy", while skipping over the mundane moments that feature humans.

--

Review: "Michael Jackson's This Is It"

2009-11-01T16:39:00.003+08:00

Two weeks before the movie premiered, I bought my tickets for "Michael Jackson's This Is It". It's not that I'm that big a fan of Michael Jackson that I "die-die" had to watch the show. Rather, I wanted to see him on the big screen and feared that tickets would sell out fast once they became available.

Thus, on its second day of screening, I was seated in a packed cinema hall to watch the last performance by this legendary singer. Going in, I hadn't really known what to expect, aside from his rehearsal footage. Was this going to be a documentary? Would his family members be interviewed? Was it a retrospective celebration?

As it turns out, "This Is It" was what his concert would've been, if he had been alive to stage it. The few interviews were limited to those with his musicians and dancers, who spoke with such awe-struck tones about working with Michael Jackson. Surprisingly, none of the key concert producers or organisers were interviewed directly, apparently preferring to provide a more "lay man's" point-of-view.

What stuck out most from the interviews was their dedication to their work, and it was because of Michael Jackson's direct and intimate touch with how he wanted his concert to be. Throughout the show, and since this was rehearsal footage, we got to see Jackson focus so strongly on his songs and choreography. One part that brought this out clearly this was when he dictated how he wanted the opening notes to (I think) "I Just Can't Stop Lovin' You", and didn't rest till his lead pianist got it right.

It's little moments like this that make me wonder just how his concert would've turned out "live". Going to a concert, one usually experiences the moment in all of its musical and technical wonder. But there's a lot more work that goes on behind-the-scenes, as this movie showed. Like the shooting of the new videos for "They Don't Care About Us" and "Thriller", when I thought about how those dancers were probably cursing and swearing every time they had to get each minute move just perfect for Michael Jackson's desires.

But then, the movie also showed the singer's dedication to his craft. He danced easily like he was in his twenties. The moonwalk, the snappy hand gestures, everything was there on incredible display. In particular, I could feel his energy in the opening songs, like "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" and later with "Beat It". However, there were also times when he did a lot of striding across the stage for the entire song, which made me wonder whether those were moments when he was taking it easy due to exhaustion and in anticipation of the next dance. But this was a 50-year-old guy, I'm sure everyone would forgive him if he wasn't thumping for two hours straight.

It's probably fair to say that Michael Jackson was a truly unique performer, and "This Is It" bears this out. There are few singers who could not only sing and dance, but sing and dance memorably. His old songs still sounded modern and his slick moves are still unmatched. The movie is a testament to his genius and poor substitute for what should have been the pinnacle moment of his career.

--

Review: "Coraline" in 3D

2009-10-22T00:47:00.000+08:00

Thanks to omy.sg for a free ticket, I and a friend had the chance to watch the stop-motion film, "Coraline" in 3D. Yep, that meant putting on a pair of bulky glasses, but it was worth it.

Right from the start, the 3D experience was mesmerizing. I really felt like I could reach out to touch the objects on the screen. During the introduction sequence, when a doll is being sewed, I thought I could feel the doll if I just stretched my hand out. This is one movie where the 3D experience was definitely worthwhile. Yes, there were some parts when it felt like a normal 2D film, but those did not occur often.

And even if there were some 2D-like portions, you would most likely have not noticed. I certainly didn't, as I was drawn into Coraline's fantasy world. Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman, I certainly wasn't expecting a run-of-the-mill children's show. Though this movie had its dark tone, I think children, especially those who can appreciate films other than those that Miley Cyrus appears in, will enjoy this show.

And why shouldn't they? I'm sure every kid has always wondered about escaping into a parallel universe, where they are king or queen and life is superbly comfortable. That's what the heroine, Coraline, experiences. Where her mother and father were workaholics who couldn't give her the time of day, in the "Other World", Coraline gets to indulge in some good home-cooked food from her "Other Mother" and dance and play with her "Other Father".

Of course, life isn't that simple, as Coraline quickly discovers. From then on, the movie follows the tried-but-true "hero's journey": heroine faces a crisis, heroine gathers her allies and weapons, heroine faces down the villain, heroine rescues everyone. For a children's show, this works wonderfully and inspiringly. I don't know how many kids would be willing to fight a baddie who has buttons for eyes.

On the other hand, that's what I found too fantastic about this film: Coraline's quest was too smooth, too matter-of-fact. She just slid from situation to situation, without any feeling of "oh wow, what have I gotten myself into?". Even when she first saw the "Other Parents" with their button-eyes, she didn't appear repulsed. That was simply unbelievable.

So, it's a good thing that the show was saved by its strong but simple plot, and also the performances by its actors. Although there were a few big names in the show, their personalities disappeared into that of their characters. For instance, Dakota Fanning and Teri Hatcher were unrecognisable as Coraline and the mother/Other Mother respectively. John Hodgman, the PC guy in Apple's "Mac vs PC" ads, was similarly indistringuishable from his humorous father/Other Father character.

Which is good, because then I didn't feel distracted from the movie. That's what I wanted and that's what I got. "Coraline" is a movie that is delightful in its simple way. It'll make children feel wishful (if not too frightened by the visuals) and adults whimsical.

--

Review: "The Time Traveler's Wife"

2009-09-21T23:08:00.002+08:00

Though I had never read the book, I had heard good things about "The Time Traveler's Wife". Girl falls for guy, but girl has a hard time with guy because guy keeps leaving girl alone, because, you know, it's in his genes.

Normally, that would just be another cliched plot for a romance flick. In "Time Traveler's Wife", it's given a twist in that the hero, Henry, disappears because a genetic anomaly causes him to travel in time. So though he leaves the heroine, Clare, alone, he actually reappears in her life somewhen else. Initially, it made the movie a tad hard to follow, because it jumps in after Clare has already "met" him earlier in her life, so the audience has to quickly catch up to follow what's going on. That probably works in the written form, but on-screen, it could prove difficult for audiences who are more used to a chronologically linear form.

But once I figured it out, the plot actually worked. I could see why and how both of them fell in love with each other and were willing to stick it out, in spite of the trouble that his anomaly caused (besides broken dishes and lonely Christmases). I think a lot of people who live with absent spouses or partners, like traveling salesmen, would really understand how Clare felt about her situation.

However, I thought that both Rachel McAdams' performance was rather flat. She portrayed the pining, whiny Clare rather well, but that was the problem: she was pining and whiny. Somehow, she didn't manage to make Clare able to rise above her predicament.

At least her good looks provided some eye candy in the film.

Eric Bana was, unfortunately, relegated to second fiddle. Which makes sense, since this film was entitled "The Time Traveler's Wife". It's a pity, though, because I thought he played his part quite well. As his character aged and became accustomed to his "gift", I could see his attitude change from one of "oh shit, here it goes again" to "hmm, I'm fading, lah-dee-dah". I also thought that he was able to bring across his character's anguish and hopelessness towards the end of the movie.

And once in a while, I actually expected him to "Hulk out" at any moment, haha!

All in all, this was a truly sappy romantic flick. Its story worked hard to tug at my heartstrings, and I understand that it caused some people to actually cry (I maintained dry eyes!). There were moments when I was rooting for the characters, and others when I wanted to scream, "Oh, get on with it!" And the ending was entirely predictable, if a tad dragged out too.

Maybe the end result was because of its "translation" from print to screen, so some bits did not work as well as they should've. But if you enjoy curling up with your loved one for two hours of romantic escapism, then this probably the movie for you.

--

RIP: Patrick Swayze

2009-09-16T00:15:00.001+08:00

Like most people of my generation, I first got acquainted with Patrick Swayze in the movie, "Dirty Dancing". Back then, I didn't really understand what the big craze over the movie was, but I watched it all the same with my sister.

And well, for a young impressionable boy, the sensual dance that led to the sex scene was quite an eye-opener.

But the movie stuck with me, and Patrick Swayze epitomised the kind of guy that I wanted to be: handsome, suave, and chicks dig him. His dance moves also captivated me, since it would seem that I'm born with two left feet.

Years later, I watched him again portray the anguished spirit who had to protect his girlfriend in "Ghost". Besides learning a new use for "ditto", I was again taken in by his tragic portrayal of the man who just couldn't let go of his love. Yes, the pottery scene was extremely fun to watch, but it was his overall performance in that show that made me admire him even more.

And like most people, that's all of his movies that I really watched. It wasn't until years later that I bought the "Dirty Dancing" soundtrack and realised that the man could sing as well! "She's Like the Wind" is my perennial favourite. The lyrics are actually quite depressing, in that he seems to be singing of a love that cannot be (thus, she's like the wind and blown away). But the way he sang it made it seem more like an anthem.

More recently, I watched the pilot of his TV series, "The Beast". It was painful to see this hunk looking so worn and weary during his real life fight with cancer. His performance in that show was gritty and seemed very real. And it showed that he could take on such versatile roles.

And at least with "Dirty Dancing", he gave me a show that has made the time of my life.

--

Review: "Up"

2009-08-31T23:23:00.001+08:00

It was only recently that I finally managed to watch the newest Pixar movie, "Up". Though I was still able to watch it on the big screen, I had to settle for the non-3D, non-digital version. Fortunately, Pixar's storytelling strength remained as good as it's ever been, and I found myself thoroughly enjoying this movie.

In my view, "Up" is the first Pixar movie that was purposely produced for adults. Not that there's raunchy sex or random acts of violence. Rather, the story of an old man fulfilling his promise to his late wife's dream is one that would resonate more closely and dearly with the grown-ups. Besides, I don't see how a grumpy old fart could be endearing to children.

I also thought that there were some parts that children would not necessarily understand, like when the kid Russell says that he appreciates doing mundane stuff with his dad rather than their exciting antics. Most kids probably feel that way, but would never express it the way Russell did.

Perhaps this movie was a sign that Pixar is growing up from its kiddie toy roots. Pixar has experimented with old people in its earlier short films, like "Geri's Game". But it hadn't then achieved its current reknown. I'd like to see how Pixar further experiments with the computer animated film genre to reach a more diverse audience.

Of course, there was still a lot for the kids to enjoy. This is, after all, a Disney film. So there are the dogs with their squirrel fetish, the funny looking birds, and basically the grand adventure of being whisked away on a fantastic adventure. Who has never dreamed of floating away on a balloon, let alone a house with a huge number of balloons? This is why I still prefer Pixar's movies. Its themes are more simple and universal, and not the gawdy humour that Dreamworks uses.

Of course, that's not to say that it's a perfect studio that produced a perfect film. Russell, the boy scout, started off as a very whiny irritating character. Even halfway through the film, I still had a desire to wring my hands around his animated neck. Fortunately, he developed well in the third act to save the day.

There was also the gross under-characterisation of the villain, Charles Muntz. His ability to stoop to such low levels showed a very one-sided personality. Or maybe I'm thinking too hard, since this is still a kids film that requires simple characters.

So I should probably stop over-thinking about:

the ability of the balloons to remain intact after passing through a lightning storm
the strength of an old man and a young boy in pulling a two-storey house -- with just a hose!
the dexterity of said old man in clambering over an airship

But don't let these shortfalls stop you from enjoying this show. Especially if you're an adult who's always wished for a marvelous adventure.

--

Review: "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"

2009-06-28T23:44:00.000+08:00

I finally managed to watch "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen". This was after it had been out in theatres for about half a week, enough time for the bad reviews to pile up and influence my expectations of the movie. And, sad to say, those negative reviews were spot-on. Michael Bay has really made a mess of the franchise.

Unfortunately for me, I had spoiled myself by reading the comic adaptation first. As a result, I had already known just how bad the storyline was. Even in the comic, Sam Witwicky came across as the whiny boy who refused to grow up yet got handed every responsibility in the world. Optimus Prime appeared less heroic than in the first movie. The major plothole about why the Fallen hadn't discovered the tomb of the Primes when he had millenia to search Earth was never explained satisfactorily. And all of the other robots, whether Autobots or Decepticons, were relegated to second-stringers next to their human counterparts.

Also, the new robots didn't make a difference at all. With more characters, one would expect a diversity of relationships and sub-plots. The only one that I thought would've been cool would be to see some robotic romance between Ironhide and Arcee. However, given Bay's disdain for the female robots, this was a dream that would never be realised.

Instead, Bay's favourites, the Autobot twins, were given too much screen time for their usefulness. As the other negative reviews had pointed out, they were the worst characters ever to make it to the big screen since "Star Wars"' Jar Jar Binks -- and I thought Jar Jar was quite tolerable! In contrast, the twins were just irritating. I hope someone does an edit of this film and calls it "Transformers: Absence of the Twins".

But removing the twins would still not do justice to the "Transformers" part of the title. The story was just nonsensical from the start. Like the attack in Shanghai. After two years of fighting huge robots, you'd think that the Autobots and U.S. Army would have a better idea of containing the fight. (Or maybe not, given how events have unfolded in Iraq.) And the final battle between Optimus Prime and the Fallen, where supposedly only a Prime could kill the Fallen? It seemed like after two punches, the Fallen just basically, well, fell. What the...?!

Even Devastator, the mother-of-all-bad-ass robots, was reduced to a bumbling gorilla for the most part. Where was the menacing robot who terrified the $#!+ out of the Autobots in the cartoon movie? And -- BIG SPOILER -- he was the robot with the testicles!!! DAMN YOU, MICHAEL BAY!! I had wanted to buy the Constructicons toy set (if it ever sees the light of day), but I've changed my mind now. I'd rather lay my hands on the classic green-and-purple ones and reclaim my innocent childhood.

Devastator's transformation, though, was rather cool, especially seeing as how it seemed like he forced the other Constructicons to merge with him. If only it had been shot in a wider persepective or a bird's eye view, so that the audience (and us fan boys) could really grasp the enormity and awesomeness of the combination.

Alas, for a "Transformers" movie, the robots were just pitiful. All except Soundwave. His voice was just... creepy and menacing at the same time. Almost like in the cartoon, but more bad-ass. Too bad he was seemingly absent (or indistinguishable from the other robots) during the final climactic battle.

Okay, and Jetfire too, when he made his entrance with his clarion call, only because it had a swashbuckler feel to it.

Not that his presence would have made a difference, I think. The humans would've still smashed the Decepticons. Yup, the humans, not the Autobots. I thought that this was a "Transformers" movie? Why were the humans doing all of the fighting? And as one would colloquially ask, "Bombs don't need money, is it?" There were too many explosions, enough to distract you from the absence of a storyline.

And if explosions weren't enough, Bay filled the movie with fratboy humour that would be better suited to a "National Lampoon"-type movie. Like the testicles scene. Or the university filled with sex-starved sluts in every nook and cranny. Or the guy caught with his pants down next to another passed-out guy. Or a robot humping Megan Fox's leg (poor Miss Fox!). I was particularly concerned about the reactions from the parents who had brought their preteen children. Parents, this is not a children's movie. It's rated PG - Parental Guidance, and believe me, you'll need to provide a lot of guidance!

This was just a terrible, terrible movie. This is one for the gutter. Now excuse me while I rewatch the cartoon movie and remember how the death of Optimus Prime was treated with so much dignity that children cried when they saw it.

--

Review: "Monsters vs Aliens"

2009-05-20T00:36:00.002+08:00

Thanks to omy.sg, I had the opportunity to catch a preview of "Monsters vs Aliens" on Monday night. Unfortunately, due to last minute delays, I had missed the first 10 to 15 minutes of the film.

As a result, the film felt much shorter than expected. When the final credits came scrolling up, I realised that little more than an hour had passed. In fact, by the middle of the film, I had a funny feeling that this was going to be a short film.

Yes, it's animated. Yes, it uses modern computer graphics instead of the old animation cels. Yes, it's in 3D. And yes, it has some big name voices. But if those were budgetary excuses to make a short film, then I'm sorely disappointed.

But first, I have to say that watching a 3D film was quite an enjoyable experience! Firstly, the glasses provided by Cathay Cinema were quite well designed for comfort, even for a person wearing spectacles. And the 3D effects were very well done, especially in the battle scenes, when it felt like debris was being littered all over the cinema hall. The first time that happened, I nearly wanted to raise my hands to shield myself! Haha, that would've been a very suah ku moment.

Unfortunately, the 3D experience was just a glossy finish. With underdeveloped characters and a penchant for slapstick humour, especially embodied in the buffoon of a president, there wasn't much to like in "Monsters vs Aliens".

The story was a simple one: girl gets strange powers, girl is confined with other strange creatures, US government uses said creatures to defend Earth from an alien attack, girl embraces her powers and becomes a hero. But then, this is a kids' show, so the story has to be kept as simple as possible, you know, unlike that of an old man who flies his house UP to distant lands with balloons.

But then, my expectations had already been lowered even before watching the film, because this is a Dreamworks picture. To me, that meant that it wouldn't have the same level of enjoyment that I get from Pixar films. For some reason, Dreamworks cartoons have always seemed a bit more... adult.

I don't mean this in terms of the level of violence or language (and there's no on-screen nudity either, obviously). Rather, it's the type of jokes that were used. I felt that adults would have been better able to appreciate the funny moments than the children. Which is ironic, since "Monsters vs Aliens" is a cartoon, i.e. targeted at children. Sure, there are the usual sight gags, weird characters and odd body shapes. But those somehow just weren't funny or endearing enough to lift the film.

Here's a very telling anecdote: the adults and children in the audience laughed at different moments of the film. The adults enjoyed listening to the retro "Beverly Hills Cop" theme and caught the relationship jokes. But the kids laughed most loudly when a male character said the word "very" many times. Ideally, I think the filmmakers would want everyone to laugh at the same time and share the humorous moment together.

Or maybe I'm just wrong. After all, I'm an adult, what do I know about children entertainment? Maybe "Monsters vs Aliens" really is a very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very enjoyable show for those in primary school.

Aside: this time, moviegoers not only got to keep the card stock movie ticket, but also a brochure on Cathay's 3D cinema experience and a set of "Monsters vs Aliens" stickers of Bob. Yay!

--

Review: "Star Trek"

2009-04-30T21:40:00.002+08:00

Space. The final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship "Enterprise"... and those voyages start right here! Thanks to omy.sg, I had a golden opportunity to watch the much-awaited "Star Trek" one week before its premiere in Singapore -- and the rest of the world!

Some caveats first: I'm a fan of Star Trek, having watched almost every episode of "Star Trek: The Next Generation", "Star Trek: Voyager", "Star Trek: Enterprise" and nine of the previous 10 movies. So I more-or-less know my Star Trek mythology. But I'm not a hardcore Trekkie, so don't debate with me about warp drives and transporter technology.

With that aside, you don't need to know the Star Trek lore to enjoy this movie. By itself, it stands well as an action-drama-comedy-science fiction feature film. It tells the story of how Kirk went from a smart aleck flirt looking for the next fight to a mature and capable leader of the flagship of Starfleet. Along the way, we meet the other members of the legendary crew, particularly Spock, Dr "Bones" McCoy and -- in an interesting character twist -- Uhura. (I never knew Uhura could be so sexy -- or that she lip-locked with a key crew member!)

JJ Abrams, best known for "Alias" and "Lost", has done an admirable job in making "Star Trek" approachable to the general audience. There is enough science to keep the Trekkie sated, yet not overwhelm the average Joe.

In place of the emphasis on science, "Star Trek" treats us with a strong and thought-provoking storyline about consequences and the tapestry of life. Unravel one thread, and history can change forever. Hardcore Trekkies would know what I mean from what was shown in the trailer. For the rest of us, it's explained cleanly, clearly and simply.

To bring that story to life, action and humour are weaved neatly so that there is no let-up in the movie's pace. Whether it's good ol' fist fights or a free-fall space dive or Dr "Bones" McCoy chasing after Kirk to administer injections, there's something to keep you entertained. And humour was put to good use to reduce the tension at key moments while helping the audience build a stronger affinity with the characters.

Like any good movie, it is the characters who make you relate with the story. Almost everyone is likable, which could be sickening to the average moviegoer, but to the Trekkie, you'd know that that's exactly how Star Trek founder, Gene Roddenberry, would've liked it. Sure, Spock delivers some serious whoop-ass on Kirk, but it is their strong camaraderie that defines the movie.

Unfortunately, I thought that the show focused too much on Kirk. I'm sure it was supposed to play out as a buddy movie between Kirk and Spock, but perhaps that aspect was trimmed to keep the movie lean and tight for non-Trekkies. As a result, you are left with the certainty that both Kirk and Spock would become the best of friends, but you also wish that that bond could have been depicted more strongly.

Another bit that left a bitter taste in my mouth was the whole plot. Without revealing too much, I think I can safely say that whatever we Trek fans knew before is not true any more. Just throw it out of the window. The unraveled tapestry has led to a whole mess of threads. Like the movie's tagline says, "The future begins". That is so true, it's scary. But I guess a reboot was necessary to keep the mythology fresh and exciting for a new generation.

Special effects-wise, well, this is "Star Trek", so we are treated to fantastic visuals. I especially enjoyed the creative use of light and sound. In the all-white Enterprise, the bright lights were surprisingly not very blinding. But the little flashes of light that peeked at the corners made the set seem even more futuristic. And that saying about you can't hear a scream in space? That was driven home almost deafeningly in the opening act and some of the later scenes.

But even if you take away the fanciful lights and sounds and the iPod-like sets and the loud explosions, you're still left with a very good, watchable movie. Star Trek has definitely returned to form, and ready to boldly go where it's never gone before!

--

HBO Asia blogger event: "True Blood"

2009-04-11T14:39:00.003+08:00

On 26 March, the folks from HBO Asia invited a group of bloggers and their friends to a party at Ink Cafe Bar at Swissotel. The event was to launch the Asian premiere of the HBO series, "True Blood". There were about 10 of us, a nice cosy number, and what followed was unlike any film premiere that one would expect.

As soon as I arrived with my friend, we were "ambushed" at the entrance to take a photo to resemble the "True Blood" poster. They provided the fake vampire teeth and red ink to simulate blood, but essentially all I needed to do was to curl my tongue up at the lip.

Food consisted of typical posh bar-type snacks, served continuously to us by the waitresses. But the drink of the night was a special concoction called -- no surprises here -- "true blood". I don't remember the ingredients, but it was essentially an alcoholic mixer with red colour from the cranberry juice. It was nice and sweet and could become a delectable staple at any bar.

And to highlight the importance of the drink, there was a contest to see who could make the best "true blood". Three bloggers gamely took on the challenge.

We were then shown a montage of clips from the Season 1 episodes, like a "here's what you missed" recap. So without watching the show, I know pretty much all about it. Which doesn't mean that I'll watch it in its entirety, since I don't subscribe to the MAX channel.

(MAX is the new Cinemax. Its new positioning is as a male-oriented HBO-like channel. So expect things like action films and "HBO Wrestling".)

We were also introduced to an online game, "Fang Fighter". It's a Flash game where you have to fight vampires across three levels. Finish it and you can enter a contest to win an iPAQ or HP Mini 1000. Ooooh... Personally, I found the game interface to respond too slowly, i.e. after I pressed a button, my character responded after a second or so. During that time, the opponent could have delivered a lethal blow. I've already commented about this to HBO Asia. I hope they can fix this before the 7 May contest deadline.

To wrap up the evening, we were treated to the first few episodes of "True Blood". Although it's yet another vampire show, this one focuses on the relationship between a vampire man, Bill, and metahuman girl, Sookie, played by Anna Paquin. Their relationship is made more complicated as the vampire society attempts to integrate with human society, thanks to the invention of the fake human blood, "True Blood". It's like "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" with its supernatural themes and personalities, but without the slashing and teenage angst. And probably worlds apart from "Twilight".

I have to say that this is one of the more fun blogger events that I've been to. Instead of the usual networking and eating, this one -- with its drink-making game -- made the night seem more friendly. Perhaps that's the difference in blogger events organised by techies versus media-types. Of course, it helps that we got to watch a free show too!

--

RIP: Natasha Richardson

2009-03-20T14:05:00.002+08:00

Stage and movie actress Natasha Richardson died on 19 March 2009 from a head injury, which she suffered during a skiing lesson. She was only 46 years old.

I had known her mainly as Mrs Liam Neeson, i.e. the wife of the film actor. I also knew that she came from an acting pedigree. Her grandfather, mother and sister are/were actors, and I'd seen her sister, Noely Richardson, in the TV series, "Nip/Tuck".

But it is the film, "The Handmaid's Tale", where I came to know of this woman. I had rented this movie at the spur of the moment some years back. I was actually looking for something to pass the time, so I picked up this DVD, read the box, then brought it home to watch. Her performance there was quite good and made me feel deeply for the trials that her character had to go through.

It was only later that I read the book on which the film was made that I realised how complex her character and situation really were. Natasha Richardson was able to make her character extremely approachable to an audience that was unaware of the original story. And that is how I'll remember her.

RIP Natasha Richardson, 1963 - 2009

--

Review: "Watchmen"

2009-03-15T00:33:00.002+08:00

After uncountable years of "production hell" and many, many months of hype (even from the "300" trailer), "Watchmen" finally appeared on the big screen to great expectations and high hopes. Based on the graphic novel of the same name by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, it has ranked as one of the most eagerly awaited film adaptations by the legion of comic book fans.

So did "Watchmen" succeed? It's difficult to answer that question. If you were looking for a superhero movie a la "X-Men", "Superman" or even "The Dark Knight", then you would have been very disappointed with "Watchmen". If you wanted a faithful frame-by-frame adaptation of the graphic novel, then you would be very satisfied. And if, like me, you were looking for something in between, then you would leave the cinema hall with a bittersweet taste in your mouth.

To understand this feeling, you need to understand the graphic novel. Alan Moore had written "Watchmen" as an exposition on the state of superheroics back in the 1980s. So-called "dark" superheroes were becoming very common, for example, a planet-juggling Superman had been throttled back into a person who was more comfortable being "normal". 'Watchmen" took this sentiment and ran with it, extrapolating it to what seemed like a logical -- if somewhat terrifying -- conclusion.

On top of that, the format of a graphic novel allowed Moore to express his ideas with words. The graphics provided by Gibbons were there simply to support Moore's vision. Take away the images and the story would still be profound, though its impact would be lessened. And that's the problem with the film adaptation. In recreating the comic book frame-by-frame, it also left intact a lot of exposition.

This was most noticeable in the film's conclusion. Like Commissioner Gordon's monologue at the end of "The Dark Knight", Ozymandias explanation of why he did what he did seemed to be very unnecessarily long. I felt that it should have been tightened, with more emphasis on visuals and action. As a film instructor once said, film is not watching a group of "talking heads".

As a result, the majority of the audience that had been unexposed to the graphic novel would feel extremely unsatisfied with the movie. This is in spite of the excellent actors and fight scenes and graphic effects. In all of those departments, "Watchmen" excelled greatly. Unfortunately, it lacked in the one area that was most important to any movie.

It's been said that the "Watchmen" comic could not be adapted to the big screen. I don't think so. Certainly, I feel that two-and-a-half hours is still not enough to present "Watchmen" satisfactorily. The problem is with the format. This movie is an example of how what works in one format, i.e. print, does not necessarily work well in another, i.e. film. Unfortunately, Zak Snyder, the director, could not have done anything else if he wanted to remain faithful to the material and the fans. There's just no easy way out of these two demands.

And so, we have a film like "Watchmen". It's faithful, reverent even to the graphic novel. And yet it still couldn't succeed the way it should've.

--

7 movies to watch in 2009!

2009-02-04T23:53:00.002+08:00

2008 was a great year for a movie buff like me, and 2009 looks promising too! Here are five movies that I plan to watch:

"Watchmen"
Well, of course! This film adaptation of the seminal award-winning graphic novel promises to rock the socks off comic fans and average moviegoer everywhere! With Zack Snyder's stylised take on an alternate universe of superheroics, it promises to live up to its stratospheric expectations.
X-Men Origins: Wolverine
Though I didn't quite like the last X-Men movie, I have high hopes for this one. Besides the title character, it features some other familiar characters from the comics too, so it'll be fun to see them display their powers in "real life".
"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen"
I didn't like what Michael Bay did with the last film and I don't like what I'm hearing about what he's doing with this one. But there's a small part of me -- the part from my childhood that enjoyed the classic cartoons -- that's hoping that it won't be as bad as I fear.
"Star Trek"
Though I'm a bigger fan of "Star Trek: The Next Generation", I still enjoy anything that bears the legendary title. I think it'll also be a nostalgic kick to see the original crew (Kirk, Spock, McCoy, etc) and the good ol' starship, Enterprise.
"Up"
I had no idea that this Pixar movie was coming out this year until I saw the trailer recently! I certainly didn't expect it to be out one year after "Wall-E". But a Pixar movie is a must-watch, if not for its advanced graphics, then for its approachable but enjoyable storylines.

And on the "maybe I'll watch it if I'm in the mood and have time, money and company" list are these two movies:

"Terminator Salvation"
I've developed a meh attitude towards the franchise since "Terminator 3". To me, "Terminator 2" was exactly how the Terminator storylines came to a fitting close. But with Christian Bale fronting this sequel (in spite of his recent tirade), I may watch it if I'm in the mood and have the time, money and company.
"Sherlock Holmes"
I don't know much about this movie, except that it's a modern take on the classic character, complete with him being muscle-bound and willing to throw a punch or ten. But Robert Downey Jr. was excellent in "Iron Man", so maybe his performance here will be worth the ticket price.

Review: "Slumdog Millionaire"

2009-01-18T22:43:00.001+08:00

At the 2009 Golden Globe Awards, the Best Film award went to, not an American/Hollywood movie, but an Indian one that was made by British. And deservedly so. "Slumdog Millionaire" is the kind of heartwarming movie that the average moviegoer would not think about watching at first, but after watching it, would wonder why he didn't want to watch it in the first place.

As the name and poster imply, "Slumdog Millionaire" is about a kid from the Indian slums who plays the Indian version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" At first, you think it's for fame and fortune, but later realise that it's for something simpler. I won't spoil that revelation here; suffice to say that what the published movie reviews say barely scratch the protagonist's true reason.

Even if you ignored the whole "Millionaire" part of the story, you would still be able to appreciate the painful life of living in the underbelly. The slums depicted here could be from any part of the world, making the personalities and situations appear very familiar. Thus, you wouldn't need to understand Indian society specifically to appreciate the grim lives that these so-called "slumdogs" have to endure. And that, I think, makes this film approachable to anyone who is willing to watch it with an open mind.

What I really enjoyed about this movie was how Jamal, the protagonist, explained how he knew all of the answers in the game show. You know what they say about learning from the streets? That's what happened here. Imagine knowing that the inventor of the revolver was Samuel Colt because someone referred to a gun as a Colt 45.

Of course, there were some bits that were difficult to watch. Okay, I'll spoil one scene here: a boy jumped into shit... literally. (He did so to escape the locked toilet and be able to meet his favourite actor.)

Jamal seemed to be blessed with a wonderfully photographic memory, so that he could remember everything that he had ever seen in his life, including a childhood glimpse of a boy dressed as a Hindu god. While that may seem too incredible to be true, I think that it's entirely believable. I've read too many real life accounts of intelligent people who, unfortunately, weren't born into more fortunate environments.

Then there's Jamal's opposite, his older brother, Salim. He was the quintessential "butthead". There were many times when I wished Jamal would just blow his brains out. While Salim had a few redeeming moments, these weren't enough to make me feel like he had been written in a one-sided manner.

Finally, there's Latika, the girl for whom Jamal appeared in the "Millionaire" game show. Like Jamal, she's another tortured soul, though because she's female, her torture is of another sort. Still, it was quite heartening to see how she (and Jamal) were able to rise above her troubles.

At the end, this is what the film is all about: succeeding against all odds. Sure, it may take place only in celluloid form, but I'd like to think that it gives hope to all that there is indeed a bright light of triumph at the end of the long, dank tunnel.

Oh, and if you think that this British film wasn't Indian enough, then you need to watch the credits!

--

Review: "The Day the Earth Stood Still"

2008-12-20T00:05:00.001+08:00

Let me just say this upfront: Keanu Reeves can play three kinds of roles: someone who's aloof, a person who takes himself too seriously, or as an alien.

In "The Day the Earth Stood Still", he plays all three roles, which can actually be considered a good thing. Because in a film as insipid as this, it didn't matter what role he played, as long as it was someone -- or in the case of this movie -- something alive.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" is a remake of the classic science fiction film. The story has been changed so that the aliens have come to decimate all life on Earth because of the damage inflicted by climate change. Well, I guess if there's a reason to kill everything, it's to give nature a second chance.

And that about sums up my feelings for this show. I didn't watch the original version, so I don't know how awesome and ground-breaking it was. I suppose it's just as well, because this modern update was a movie that made my brain stand still.

In the first place, it didn't fit into any known genre. It was science fiction, but there was barely enough science to fill a primary school textbook. It could've been an action film, but the most we got was the U.S. Army looking quite useless. It may have been a drama, but there was no gripping tension in the story. Perhaps it should be filed under "horror" because watching it was just so dreadful.

It's a pity that Jennifer Connelly's talent was wasted here. She is certainly capable of making good films. Same thing for Kathy Bates. And Jaden Smith was just too irritating.

And then there was Keanu Reeves. Here is an actor whom I'm always rooting for. Ever since his blockbuster-making role in "Speed", he's had a few good films, like "Matrix" and "The Lake House". Then he also takes up jobs like "The Day the Earth Stood Still", where he can't seem to get past his stone-faced expression. Or maybe that's all that was needed to portray an alien ready to bring death and destruction to Earth.

Fortunately, because this film is a terrific dud, I actually didn't mind watching Keanu Reeves mope his way through the movie. At least it didn't make him appear any worse than he did.

But oh yeah, it was a hoot to watch Keanu Reeves speak Mandarin!

--