November 14, 2010
It took time for me to get into the story of this novel. The beginning section about an old man receiving dried flowers every year is very puzzling, and I had to read it over many times to try to get it. I decided to just let it go and read on, and then the story really gets more interesting.
I think this is the first novel from Sweden that I have read, and so the Swedish names and places used were new and charming. The style of exposition of Mr. Larsson is different and nonlinear, so it does take getting used to as you progress through the book.
At first, you might balk at prolonged descriptions of people, places, businesses and technology. Sex is also treated very casually here, as Swedes are traditionally known for. But believe me, once you catch the drift of Larsson's style, it would be difficult to let go up to the very end.
The title refers to the mysterious Lisbeth Salander, a misanthropic young orphan with an unusual talent and tenacity in investigative work. However, the actual lead character of the story is journalist Mikael Blomkvist, who was hired to ghost write the memoirs of the elderly industrialist Henrik Vanger. However, we will learn that Mr. Vanger also wanted Blomkvist to solve a family mystery that has possessed him for over twenty years. And it is with this investigation that our titular Lisbeth gets into the action.
Without going into much detail, the investigation will take an incredible turn into the violent, gruesome and lurid. I personally felt this part went way over the top, but hey, maybe that is why this book stood out and became a best seller. I admit I went absorbedly along this dark ride. I brought this book along to read throughout my vacation in New England. But I simply could not put the book down, so I finished it while still on the plane going there! I cannot wait to read the next adventures of Lisbeth Salander.
*****
Usually I like to read the book first before watching the movie. In this case, reading the book first made watching the movie easier, but also made the experience a bit disappointing.
The title of this Swedish film is Män som hatar kvinnor which translates as Men Who Hate Women. I liked the way the screenplay adapted the book onto the big screen. This movie ran for over two hours, so that most of the important events in the novel are all accounted for. There were some details which were altered for cinematic purposes, but that was also OK, since it fits right into the story without altering major plot points.
In the book, more pages were spent on journalist Mikael Blomkvist. The movie, on the other hand, gives practically equal, or even more, time to Lisbeth Salander, the Goth female computer hacker with a disturbed past, facial piercings and the dragon tattoo, who helps Blomkvist solve a mystery of the rich Vanger family, unsolved for more than 20 years already. Actress Noomi Rapace portrays the titular character Lisbeth bravely and with conviction.
I say I was also disappointed in a way that having read the book cannot make me a fair judge whether the movie was able to effectively build up the suspense into the revelation of what really happened. The movie is certainly not exactly how I imagined some things. For instance, I did not imagine Lisbeth's dragon tattoo to be so big! But as a whole, this film is a very faithful retelling of the book's events, no surprises anymore.
The US is coming up with an American version of this movie by next year, and no doubt I will be watching it again. Daniel Craig (as Blomkvist), Stellan Skarsgard (as Martin Vanger) and Christopher Plummer (as Henrik Vanger) all seem to fit their roles. I am just not so sure how pretty Rooney Mara (from Social Network) can pull off playing Lisbeth.
As for "The Girl Who Played With Fire", I am thinking maybe I should watch the second movie first before reading the second book, and see how that goes.
June 2, 2009
In a rare while, along comes a movie which challenges the audience's intellect because of its intricate plotting and intriguing sequencing of scenes. "Duplicity" is an example of such a movie that keeps you guessing to the very end. The opening sequence shows our leads meeting in a party in Dubai and that liaison ends in a double-cross. The next scene is an inexplicable rain-drenched exaggerated slow-motion fight scene between two men in an airport. From such an unorthodox incongruous beginning unfolds the tale of a large-scale confidence scam that spans five years in the making.
Aside from the smart story and witty script, "Duplicity" surely does not shy from star power as well. Julia Roberts (as Claire) is so striking beautiful a con artist that you know she could manipulate you with a mere smile. Clive Owen (as Ray) uses his sad-sack charm to great advantage as well in his role. Tom Wilkinson (as Tully) and Paul Giamatti (as Garsik) play it over-the-top in their portrayal of rival business magnates, both using the most modern intel personnel and technology to gain access to each other's latest corporate moves.
We do not get the story in chronological order, as the scenes go back and forth in time. You, the audience, are kept on your toes in order to keep up with what is going on. You know you need to hang on to every word that is exchanged so as not to get lost in the plot. As the elaborate con set-up shapes up, the dialogue drips with suspicion and double-cross. The sense of irony and humor energizes the script. They even manage to sneak romance somewhere in there. Another triumph for writer-director Tony Gilroy after the Bourne series and "Michael Clayton". I loved it! Haha! A definite must-see!
June 1, 2009
We have not watched the first Night at the Museum, but decided to watch this Part 2 anyway. This sequel touches on what happened in the first movie a lot, so I had to assume a lot of what happened. Nothing really too deep I expect. I think the kids just glossed over the storyline, and had fun with individual funny sequences about the main point of the movie, which is about the exhibits of a museum coming to life because of the powers of an ancient Egyptian tablet.
This is just one fun romp. This takes place several years after the first movie, where ex-security guard Larry Daley (Ben Stiller) now owns his own successful manufacturing company. However, he finds out that his old "friends" at the New York Museum of Natural History, led by the cowboy Jedediah (Owen Wilson) and the centurion (Steve Coogan), were being moved to the Smithsonian Museum in Washington DC.
When Jedediah and company arrive in DC though, they were held captive by the evil Pharoah wanna-be Kahmunrah who wants the powerful Egyptian tablet for his own nefarious schemes. And it is up to Larry to help his friends escape and to defeat Kahmunrah and his henchmen (Ivan the Terrible, Napoleon Bonaparte and a black and white Al Capone).
Not having seen the first movie, we were impressed by the special effects of the living exhibits. Most memorable are the sequences involving the statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial and the flying of various generations of aircraft at the Air and Space Museum. There were unfortunately several sequences that seemed pointless and dragging, especially those involving Custer, and the squirrel.
There were stupidly hilarious scenes with the Jonas Brothers as singing Cupids, the talking Albert Einstein heads and the two capuchin monkeys slapping Larry silly. Some sight gags work, a lot do not though. Amy Adams makes a very spirited and sassy Amelia Earhart. Hank Azaria plays Kahmunrah with tongue in cheek, very sinister yet very funny with his little lisp. Ben Stiller though looked bored in reprising his starring role.
Overall, an enjoyable movie. A message is tacked on about going for what adds spice to one's life. There is nothing too serious or useful here. Just some shallow entertainment fare for a lazy afternoon for a few good laughs with the family.
May 18, 2009
It isn't very usual that I could get to watch two great movies in a row (when it isn't awards season). The previous week we got to watch "Star Trek" which I totally raved about, and now we watched "Angels & Demons". We watched this at the SM Mall of Asia while waiting for the David-David concert. This is the first time I have ever been denied a ticket because a showing was completely sold out! So we watched the next showing in another cinema there and that too turned out to be sold out. Amazing.
Anyway, back to the movie. "Angels and Demons" is actually my favorite Dan Brown book, more than the more popular "The Da Vinci Code." Even when I was just reading A&D, you already get a sense of how cinematic the entire story was. Apart from the obvious travelogue interest in the Rome and Vatican locales where the action takes place, we also get a closer look into the inner workings of the Vatican and the fabled history of the Illuminati.
"Angels and Demons" the movie stayed quite loyal to the main storyline of the book. The Pope just died and the Cardinals are in conclave to elect a new Pope. Before that could happen however, a terrorist kidnapped four favored Cardinals and starts to kill them ceremonially in various locations, invoking the Church's historical dispute with the Illuminati. This terrorist does all this while holding the entire Vatican City under threat of annihilation with a powerful anti-matter explosive. The plot, especially the ending, is admittedly very unlikely and highly over-the-top but it makes for a perfect summer blockbuster.
For me, the most interesting character in A&D is the enigmatic Camerlengo. He is the priest who is the dead Pope's closest aide and confidante, and who temporarily holds the Papal powers while the new Pope has yet to be elected. I remember I was very fascinated with this character because I have never heard of such a position in the Vatican, even after years of Catholic education. I learned afterwards that Dan Brown fictionalized this part as a real Camerlengo should be a Cardinal, an elector and possible candidate for Pope, unlike what was written in the book. The movie makes major changes in the character of this Camerlengo. In the book, his name is Carlo Ventresca, a young Italian priest. In the movie, he becomes Patrick McKenna, a young Irish priest who used to fly military missions against the IRA. I do not know if these modifications were made to fit the actor who played him, Ewan McGregor, or vice versa.
The movie also works for me on a personal level. My wife and I spent some days of our honeymoon in Rome and the Vatican so we enjoyed revisiting the sights as they appeared onscreen, like the Pantheon, St. Peter's Basilica, the Sistine Chapel and Castel Sant' Angelo. During that exciting scene with the fourth Cardinal, we recalled that afternoon we spent at the Piazza Navona, just sitting down a bench there, and quietly admiring the beautiful Fountain of the Four Rivers.
Unfortunately, the main debit of the movie for me is still the actor playing the main character, Robert Langdon. Tom Hanks is completely wrong as Robert Langdon. It did not work in DVC, nor did it work here in A&D. The other members of the cast did very well in their roles. Israeli stunner Ayelet Zurer made a very good Vittoria Vetra. She is much better than Audrey Tatou was in DVC. Stellan Skargaard and Armin Muller Stahl were solid and imposing as Commander Richter and Cardinal Strauss respectively. It was a bit of a stretch to imagine Ewan MacGregor as a priest, much less the Camerlengo, but he was not bad at all.
So overall, this is a very good and exciting summer movie. Ron Howard did much better in this one than DVC. As before, do not take everything seriously as this is fiction. For those who have not read the book, read it! And later, you will be enticed to research more about Vatican lore, the Papacy, and the Illuminati, as I was, to distinguish what is fact from the fiction.
May 25, 2009
I enjoy my occasional Chinese martial arts movie once in a while. I saw the classy trailer of this film once, and thought it seemed to be of a quality above the usual of its kind. I was also intrigued by the title which made no sense at the time. I did not hear about it again until last last week when I noted it was showing, and so caught it. When I entered, the girl collecting tickets said "I-P Man?" Had me worried that is this a Chinese superhero movie. Hehe. Nevertheless, I had already bought the ticket so in I went.
The language of this film was Mandarin with English subtitles. The Mandarin soundtrack was not in very good quality, rather garbled, which was disappointing. So I ended up just reading the English subtitles along with everyone else. "Ip Man" turned out to be the Cantonese pronunciation of "Ye Wen," the name of the lead character, enigmatically played by Donnie Yen.
This is a biographical film following the real life story of Ip Man, who was a legendary martial arts master of the Wing Chun form, and eventual mentor to the equally legendary Bruce Lee. The story follows the story of Ip Man from a well-respected rich businessman who excelled in martial arts. Their prosperous village of Fo-Shan was occupied by Japanese troops in the late 1930s. Ip Man lost his fortune and had to work for meager wages with the rest of his townspeople. The highest Japanese officer in their area was arranging violent Japanese vs. Chinese martial arts tournaments for his perverse sense of entertainment, and Ip Man's skills caught his attention. Can Ip Man's formidable skills serve to rally the Chinese cause in the midst of their current sorry state of wartime persecution?
Director Wilson Yip, along with action director Sammo Hung and choreographer Leung Siu-hung, have created a seamless series of breathtakingly memorable action sequences of awesome martial arts prowess (NO special effects here), neatly integrated into this dramatic story of personal and national pride. In the center of all this is the fantastic portrayal of lead actor Donnie Yen. His humility and generosity as a family man and friend is counter-balanced with his graceful yet deadly skills as a martial artist. Mr. Yen effectively captures this unique spirit for all of us to cheer for and admire. This is indeed a must see for all fans of Chinese martial arts movies.
May 4, 2009
This is already the second movie with "Haunting" in the title that I have seen this year. This movie is unusually plugged to be "Based on THE true story," not just A true story. I believe I may have actually seen the original Discovery Channel documentary about this particular haunted house in Connecticut, but I cannot be too sure now. Given the array of dramatic issues tackled in this movie, I would think it was based loosely only on the actual events. But then again, truth can be stranger than fiction.
This story revolves around a typical American family who had a son with cancer. They needed to get a cheap house near the hospital where the son is getting treatment. The regimen he is undergoing may tend to give him visual and auditory hallucinations. This was how some of his initial experiences in the house rationalized away. But as the movie progressed, they find out more about the house's history, and why supernatural events persist to make their stay a living hell. The story further touched on several other macabre topics such as funeral parlors, séances, ectoplasmic photography and even grave robbery.
This is not a bad horror movie. The first two-thirds of this movie are genuinely creepy. The opening credits with all those photographs of dead people and the funereal music set the mood just right for the rest of the 100 minutes you will invest in the theater. All the scenes with the small kids playing hide and seek were a study in effective tension. There was that memorable scene when they come home finding son Matt hiding behind a wall of furniture trying to claw his way out of the wall. And for me, the creepiest was the box of EYELIDS (you have to see it to believe it)!
Of course, there were also horror clichés here and there, like brave people walking in the dark alone to investigate strange noises, the erratic power outages, and the obligatory shower scene by the pretty teenage girl (Amanda Crew). The ending sequences were a bit excessively over-dramatic, but admittedly the sight of all those hidden dead bodies was really scary.
The mom is played by Virginia Madsen and she is really a solid presence here. Her acting is very natural and realistic, nothing of the typical over-the-top horror theatrics with her. The son with cancer Matt is performed by a new actor Kyle Gallner pretty well, and he succeeds to be as gaunt and creepy-looking as the ghosts that he sees. On the down side is the character and the actor of the dad (Martin Donovan). The character was carelessly written and woodenly portrayed.
A final word, according to a conversation between Matt and co-patient Reverend (Elias Koteas), cancer patients are more sensitive to spirits around them because they are spending their life on the borderline of the living and the dead. I have never heard that before, but I guess it is just some interesting pop psychology from the scriptwriters to keep the story going.
May 12, 2009
I am definitely giving this movie a five star rating. I'd give it a six if I could. This is the best movie I have seen so far this year! I am not a serious Trekkie by any means. I know the members of the crew of the Original Series, but not with too much familiarity. But for a casual Star Trek fan like me, this prequel is really excellent! Excellent story. Excellent casting. Excellent technicals. Excellent execution.
The film begins with the birth of James Tiberius Kirk and it never lets up on the drama, the action, the science fiction, no holds barred. There is heavy drama even before the credits. (My wife already was teary-eyed by the end of that opening sequence!) Even when the story grapples with time travel, warps and black holes, you never get lost with the flow. The logic is always there. None of the usual plot holes that beset stories that deal with time.
I really have to complement the casting director. The new cast is amazing in its portrayal of the crew which millions of fans know and loved over the years. They have collectively succeeded in recapturing the spirit and character of the individual Enterprise crew members as young cadets. Kudos to Chris Pine as J.T. Kirk and Zachary Quinto as Mr. Spock. They really possessed the essence of the iconic characters, and the evolution of their friendship is very believable as portrayed. Apart from John Cho (as Sulu), the other actors are not really known to me, and this is an additional plus. The guy who played the young Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) also did very well, as with the guy who played Scotty (Simon Pegg).
I congratulate the director J. J. Abrams for this bold visual spectacle that went well beyond my expectations. I went in the movie house with very high expectations due to the very positive word of mouth. I was definitely NOT disappointed. I exhort all of you to watch this movie on the big screen as it deserves to be watched. I think this movie would be a classic the appeal of which will never fade even after repeated viewings.
April 30, 2009
I do not really read the original comics, so I went into this as a fan of the X-Men movies and TV cartoon series. So I am not really sure if this movie was faithful to the story. But having said that, based on its own merits, I think this movie is really awesome. Despite being leaked on the net, this is the sort of film that deserves to be seen on the big screen.
I think they were correct in choosing Wolverine as the subject of the first movie about the origins of the X-Men. The character has that combination of coolness and mystery that makes for an interesting back story. Where did all that pent-up anger come from?
The movie starts way way back in 1840's when Jimmy (Logan) and his brother Victor (Creed) were still children. These two special children grow up and go through different wars in a great opening sequence montage. Because of their fighting skills and invincibility, the two brothers (now played by Hugh Jackman and Liev Schrieber respectively) were recruited by Stryker to join a special military force.
Logan realized that that life is not right for him so he decided to desert the group. He went on to hook up with a pretty school teacher Kayla (Lynn Collins) as his girlfriend to lead an idyllic life as a lumberjack in Canada, or so he thought. One day, his brother Victor comes back and targets the girlfriend. From there, the whole story of Logan's revenge and retribution, and the actual origin of the Adamantium skeleton of Wolverine will further unfold.
Of course, a movie like this will have to feature special effects. And certainly, the effects here surpass those of the previous X-Men movies. There was that very exciting fight of Logan and Agent Zero (Daniel Henney) involving a motorcycle versus a helicopter. Amazing action choreography there. And the same is true in the scene of Logan, Victor and Weapon XI on one of the towers of Three Mile Island was fantastically rendered. This was because Weapon XI was a swordsman mutant who had been artificially imbued with other mutant powers like those of John Wraith and Cyclops, making for an breathtaking fight. The sound effects and the film editing were fantastic in these scenes and more.
I think all fans of the X-Men movies will like this excellent prequel of sorts to the entire X-Men saga. Gambit finally made an appearance in an X-Men movie, played by Taylor Kitsch. There were already scenes which showed how the young mutants of the earth have gathered together, along with a cameo by a certain bald headed mentor. There was also very nice dramatic touches with the relationship of the two brothers, and the relationship of Logan and his girlfriend Kayla. Script is simple to follow despite the number of stories intertwined. Overall, a very good, thrilling and thoroughly satisfying movie.
**** By the way, there is a scene about Col. Stryker in the middle of the first part of the credits, then another one about Logan at the very end of the credits. You may want to wait up for them, but don't expect too much though.
April 18, 2009
I watched another French film in a row (after ""Il y a Longtemps que Je T'aime" and parts of "Man On Wire"). "Entre Le Murs" (known in English as "the Class") was the French bet for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, and also the first French film to win the Palm D'Or of the Cannes Film Festival in 20 years. It is simply begging to be seen, so I did, despite knowing nothing about it.
"The Class" turns out to be a documentary-like movie about the tense interaction between teacher and students in a French multiracial high school. In particular, the film follows French grammar teacher Francois Marin who would like to think of himself as a progressive teacher who employs the interactive and self-discovery classroom technique, rather than by traditional lecture style.
However, most of his students are disturbingly belligerent, frank and disrespectful. The main conflict is with a particularly insolent Mali boy named Souleymane who has violent outbursts in class. But there are other students too from Tunisia, Morocco, China, the Caribbean, etc.. all of whom with their own personality and issues which the teacher has to deal with.
Everything in this film is very realistic indeed. It becomes even more personal after knowing that the lead actor who played Mr. Marin is Francois Begaudeau, who actually wrote the semi-autobiographical book about his experiences as a teacher, as well as adapted his own book for this film's screenplay. The execution of director Laurent Cantet is excellent for the material he has.
This is another instance when I am sure a lot of the richness of the language interplay will be lost in the subtitled translations. How I wish I could have understood that intense discussion of French imperfect tenses, or that big debate in the schoolyard between Marin and his students about the word "petasses" (which was translated in the subtitles as "skanks").
I could imagine that a lot of people will find this film boring because of the two hour length, only set within the school grounds, with no additional personal side stories about the teachers and students. But with my recent foray into the theory of Education in Graduate School, this film is quite an eye-opener about how different the school situation is these days. Definitely, this film has no Hollywood story arc and uplifting ending. It just tells the situation as it is. And that is precisely where its strength is.
April 12, 2009
"Il y a Longtemps que Je T'aime" is a French film with a similarly long English title "I've Loved You So Long." I watched this movie because it resurrected the career of an actress whom I have admired, but not heard from since "The English Patient." That actress is Kristin Scott Thomas, who was nominated for Best Actress in the last Golden Globe awards for this film.
I watched this film with no preconceived notions whatsoever about what it was about. I even thought this would be a romance. I did not anticipate the very heavy subject matter at all. Actually, the movie itself was also very slow in telling us what it was all about. Given the maudlin plot, I believe that this was the best way to slowly bring us in, without repelling us in the get go.
I found it interesting though that the book, screenplay and direction were all by one person, Philippe Claudel. I liked the naturalness of the acting of Kristin Scott Thomas and Elsa Zylberstein, who played her sister. They acted and even looked like real sisters. It was like watching a documentary with real people, not actors. Without giving too much away, I can only say that this movie is about coming out of a long stretch in prison still haunted by the ghosts of the past, and trying to reconnect with family and society. There was a medical aspect to this drama since Kristin's character Juliette is a doctor.
I have to say though that I already felt I knew the ending midway through this 2-hour film. I was actually hoping that it would twist somewhere else, but it turned out exactly like I predicted. While the movie as a whole is well made, it is my opinion that the motivations behind the decisions of the main character were just too unbelievable to support the basic premise of the whole movie, especially given the apparent closeness of their family. And I this is where the movie sort of falters for me. But then again if she made the rational decision which most of us would make in her situation, there would not be an interesting movie, would it?
April 11, 2009
Thank God for awards seasons or else low profile yet note-worthy films like "In Bruges" would never have made my list of movies to watch. I first read about it as one of the Top 10 films of 2008 in about.com, together with all five eventual Oscar Best Picture nominees. Then in the Golden Globes, both lead actors Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson netted nominations for Best Actor in a Comedy. Colin Farrell won his first Globe here. From then on, I knew I had to watch this.
You may wonder why I put "Other" in the Genre classification above, instead of Comedy like the Golden Globes did. Well, it is simply because I did not think this was a comedy AT ALL! The plot follows two hitmen sent to the medieval town of Bruges in Belgium to hide out after a messy assignment. The main conflicts and resolution of the story are hardly a laughing matter. Very serious issues of guilt and death are tackled here, with some very violent scenes.
Certainly, there are some really funny episodes and witty lines of dialogue interspersed within that main storyline. But for me, these ironic scenes and words do not a comedy make, even if that were the intention of the writer and director Martin McDonagh. Of course, this, I would not really know.
The interaction of Farrell and Gleeson was flawless. They both deserved to be nominated, yet the victory of one over the other is debatable. Farrell played the younger guy Ray who carries with him the weight of a tragic miscalculation. Gleeson is his jaded senior Ken who has already learned to find the good in bad situations. Ralph Fiennes adds to the mix with a startling performance as their malevolent boss Harry, who has a weird misplaced sense of honor.
More interesting color is added to the film by the various flawed characters the two meet in Bruges. Despite the number of these people in the sidelines, each one plays an important role in the story and film never loses its focus. I have to mention here the very pretty love interest Chloe (Clemence Poesy) and the midget actor Jimmy (Jordan Prentice) for putting in some memorable quality screen time and dialogue.
Although excellent, this may not be a film for everyone. The violent scenes can be quite bloody. There are several lines that may offend midgets, blacks and Belgians, but I guess that is where most of the black humor lay. In addition, I appreciated the fact that I watched a copy with good subtitles since the Irish brogue can get difficult to understand. And, like Ken, I do like the look, history and ambience of Bruges, and I would like to visit that place sometime in the future.
April 10, 2009
The subject of this acclaimed documentary is French acrobat Philippe Petit and his audacious crossing of the chasm between the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City on a tightrope on August 7, 1974. While it may seem like a contradiction in terms, but indeed "Man on Wire" is really a documentary that was executed with much suspense, so that the audience is fully in its grip to the very end. It fully deserves the awards it has earned last year from Sundance, all the way to the Oscar last February.
An amazing aspect was this project was the apparently complete video documentation of most of Philippe's early days in Paris with his girlfriend Annie and best pal Jean Louie, and how they supported Philippe's seemingly crazy quest. They were able to gather everyone who was involved in the big stunt to talk about their role in that event. It was really great to see all the protagonists as young people and how they look like now.
Philippe recounted his inspiration to cross the towers, allegedly even while the towers was still a plan on paper. The film was able to show breathtaking footage of his previous daring tightrope crossings at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris and the Harbour Bridge in Sydney. The planning process details regarding the WTC crossing were also very fascinatingly recounted.
The director James Marsh was correctly ingenious when he decided to treat the run-up to the actual crossing like a criminal caper. Being a decidedly illegal act, Philippe and cohorts had to resort to to covert reconnaissance, fake ids and alibis, as well as sneaking and hiding around in the dead of night avoiding guards the very night before the big event.
They also frankly dealt with the aftermath of the stunt -- how the resulting heavy media publicity affected Philippe and his relationships with his friends. The inconclusive and unclear manner of the interviewees' statements at this point certainly added much to the drama of that moment.
******* spoiler warning ********
My one complaint about the film is that the highlight crossing of the towers did NOT actually have a video footage. After all of the heightened tension, we do not actually see the crossing as it happened that day. This supposedly main event was only told in the form of witness accounts and telescopic photographs. This, I felt, was a letdown.
April 6, 2009
Yesterday was suddenly announced as a holiday (to celebrate April 9 Araw ng Kagitingan). However, by then I had already scheduled two surgeries, one at 7am, and the other at 5pm, supposedly I would be holding my clinic in between. Since the OR schedules could not be changed anymore, I had time in between to bring Elaine and the boys out to watch "Monsters vs. Aliens" in 3D.
We watched it in Gateway Mall Cinema 1. Tickets were at Php 271, which came with free popcorn. They also had giveaways of cardboard MVA visors and a complete set of bookmarks. The boys were of course very excited to wear their 3D glasses!
They were already showing trailers of upcoming movies when we came in. I was very surprised to discover that all three of the movies previewed all had 3D trailers! These were "Coraline", "Up!" and "Meatballs". The big studios really have to go the extra mile to ensure people will still be watching in theaters.
As for "Monsters vs. Aliens," I frankly did not like the movie too much. The Monster characters who are supposed to be the good guys are not too memorable or cute. Even my 7-year old son found the character of Link and Insektosaurus to be "corny". The character of Susan/Ginormica is rather "meh", with a predictable character arc.
On the other hand, there were also positives. The main bad guy Alien Gallaxhar, a sinister squid with 4 eyes, was more interesting. The artwork of the alien spaceship interior were also more interesting. The character of the US President was the only thing that is really funny, especially the scene where he makes first contact with the Alien probe, and that stupid scene at the end of the credits.
But of course, the best thing about this movie is the 3D. I think I would have dozed off if not for these special 3D effects. But then as the trailers have shown with all these upcoming 3D animated features, this trend may not be something extra special anymore in the future.
April 3, 2009
I try to watch local horror movies. I like to see how local directors would portray Filipino superstitions and folklore. This movie "Sundo" is the follow-up of director Topel Lee to his previous opus "Ouija" last year, which I also watched. Aside from that, the buzz was good, so I caught it when time permitted.
This movie is based on the folk belief that before the moment of one's death, a spirit of a previously-departed loved one would come fetch him, hence "sundo." Star Robin Padilla plays Romano, a soldier who woke up from a coma with an "open third eye." However he found this "gift" unwelcome, and isolated himself in Baguio, with his pretty, blind sister Isabel (Rhian Ramos).
One night, Romano was convinced to accompany Isabel to Manila to have her eyes checked. En route though, he was able to avert a fatal car crash that was supposed to involve them when he was alerted by his spirit sightings. After that though, one by one, their travel companions in the van all meet gruesome deaths. So Romano has to figure out how to extricate himself and his sister from this dire predicament.
Acting was very campy and hammy. Robin Padilla is really hampered by his very irritating acting tics. His incessant posturing when walking, and even when just standing, is really very distracting. The rest of the cast (Sunshine Dizon, Rhian Ramos and Katrina Halili) I am not very familiar with since we do not watch GMA shows too much. Surprised to see Mark Bautista (as the sleepy driver!) and Hero Angeles from the other network giant in this, good for them.
I was also amused to see supporting actresses who were staples of horror flicks, like Mely Tagasa, Estrella Kuenzler and the consistently spooky Odette Khan. Seeing Rina Reyes play Katrina Halili's Mother was unconvincing.
Some sets were unrealistic. Does a roadside eatery along the road from Baguio have a restroom that looks like that? But my one biggest complaint about the set was the doctor's clinic. Who would believe that people will go all the way from Baguio to Manila to see a supposed renowned eye specialist from the States with a clinic that looks like it has not been cleaned for years? The doors and corridors look like that of a seedy rundown motel.
I also have a beef about one scene in the marketplace where Romano was seeing several spirits surrounding several customers of an eatery there, just prior to a fiery explosion. It was one of the better shot sequences. Unfortunately, I have seen this one done on a much bigger scale in the Thai horror classic "The Eye."
I must say that the final series of events at the end of the movie, and the way the movie suddenly ended, was provocative. You will have to think about more afterwards to process what happened, and that is good. There was no convenient epilogue to explain things, it just ends, and I like that.
Overall, a bit of a disappointment, but the ending was good. For me, this ending sequence makes up for the rest of the movie.
March 8, 2009
Who would have thought that a documentary about a soldier's personal trip to discovery about himself and his role during the Christian Phalangist's massacre of Palestinians in Sabra and Shatila could best be presented in stark yet cool graphics animation? "Waltz with Bashir" does exactly that, surpassing my wildest expectations about what this movie was about. Ari Folman directs his own animated self in his quest to discover what happened to him during a most brutal massacre that he has all but repressed in his unconscious.
I have very vague ideas about the events surrounding the assassination of President Bashir Gemayel of Lebanon and the retaliatory violence it sparked against the Palestinians. My lack of knowledge about recent Middle Eastern history made the experience of this film very interesting, especially in the way the screenplay tackled the story. The artwork was very simple in its muted palette of colors, yet there is no denying that it was effective and even realistic. The musical score, which ranged from rock to new wave to classical, was very haunting. And words fail to describe what one feels during the point in the film when the distant comfort of animation makes a jolting return to reality in the last eight minutes.
As with all war movies I have seen, there had basically been one unifying message -- that war is senseless, and damaging to all concerned. "Waltz with Bashir" conveys this same massage in a most unique, and very memorably effective way. This did not win the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film for Israel last month. With such an excellent film like this losing, the more I am stoked to watch "Departures" from Japan which unexpectedly won the prize.
March 5, 2009
"Watchmen" is an obviously ambitious movie. They are gathering of superheroes in the fictional modern world where Richard Nixon was still US President well into the 1980s. Director Zach Snyder (who burst into the scene in a big way with "300") ups his ante with more violence, gore, bloodshed and considerably more complex inter-weaving multiple story lines.
It is really overwhelming for someone who has not read the so-called "best graphic novel in the world" by Alan Moore, and thus have no idea who these characters are at the start. But you know what, the innovative title credits sets the mood right off. And later on, you do learn about each character very well enough to care about them towards the middle and end.
I am still not really clear on what the superpowers of the mysterious Rorschach (Jackie Earle Haley) up to now. I don't think he has any, does he? But I would know what kind of person he is by the way this topnotch actor have essayed this complex character. The performance of Haley is very intense, and his character is the most interesting of all.
Mr. Manhattan (Billy Crudup) is a buff and unabashedly naked blue CG image almost throughout the whole film, yet it was still very effective in conveying this super-being's thought processes, despite his blank eyes. The raw physicality and conflicted character of The Comedian was very well limned by actor Jeffrey Dean Morgan. The actor had a magnetic screen presence that shines despite the flaws of his character. Patrick Wilson played the innate good guy Nite Owl II the best way he could given the limited range of his character.
The main antagonist Ozymandias I felt was the weak link in the cast. As played by Matthew Goode, he did not really look like a menacing super-villain nor did he even look like "the smartest man" on earth that he supposedly was. Malin Akerman had a lot riding on her as the main female character Silk Spectre II. She is quite sexy and all, but somehow her performance as a superhero was not too convincing.
Overall, it was a good enough introduction to the ultra-violent world of the Watchmen for the uninitiated, albeit a bit too long if you are not getting the drift. This movie is not really for everybody. The younger male demographic is clearly the target audience, despite the overt frontal exposures of Mr. Manhattan. As far as graphic novels go, I still prefer "Sin City" and "300". I have to confess that the violence content of "Watchmen" went a bit beyond my comfort limit.
February 21, 2009
"Rachel Getting Married" is a film about a dysfunctional family whose eldest Rachel was, yes, getting married. However the main character is not Rachel, but her black-sheep sister Kym who is a recovering drug addict just out of rehab, and dealing with guilt brought about by the the tragic death of their little brother Ethan while under her care. The stress of the wedding brings out the best and the worst in the strained relationship of the two sisters which is the main crux of most of the movie.
This complex role of Kym gives young actress Anne Hathaway a very rich character (so different from those roles she was well known for) to bring to life, and she succeed with flying colors. Her performance is raw and realistic, and very uncomfortable to watch in its realism. That squirmy long-winded speech at the wedding rehearsal, that quiet speech at the drug addict meeting where she talked about Ethan's death, that big argument with Rachel about Kym's lies during her rehab, and especially that powerful climactic scene with their estranged mother Abby -- Anne Hathaway has proved that her acting talent is by no means lightweight. She was fully deserving of the Best Actress awards she had already won and the one she might win on Oscar Night.
As the titular character Rachel, Rosemarie DeWitt is also very good in depicting the stress of woman on the week leading to her dream wedding, and having to deal with an unstable sister who seemed threaten its perfection. The other actor of note is the long-absent Debra Winger, who really shone in her few scenes as Abby, the mother of the sisters. The aforementioned scene with Anne is heartbreaking in its violence. Bill Irwin is also effective as the over-solicitous and good-natured dad who does not know what to make of how his daughters are behaving.
The unfortunate thing about this movie is the technical aspect. The camera-work is the shaky and occasionally unfocused handi-cam style which can make some scenes very dizzying (but not Blair Witch dizzy, though). I do not know why there are so many inconsequential scenes that made it to the final print, as if the editor was not at work. Why were there were too many speeches at the wedding rehearsal? Why did they have to show entire song numbers during the ceremonies when excepts would have sufficed? Couldn't they have shortened that dishwasher scene? And why did they have to show about ten minutes of strangers dancing and merry making at the wedding reception?
So overall, the movie is one where very potent and well-acted dramatic family scenes were ungainly meshed with long and boring wedding scenes, seemingly as the filler to make the film longer. I think director Jonathan Demme (yes, of "Silence of the Lambs) had failed to rein in the indulgent excesses of the script by Jenny Lumet, thus making this film only a diluted success at best.
February 20, 2009
This movie tells the story of a lesser known aspect of World War 2 in Eastern Europe, about the Bielski brothers, Tuvia, Zus, Asael and Aron. They were Belarussian Jews who were forced to hide out in the forests because German Nazis destroyed their village and massacred their families. There they end up leading more than a thousand other Jewish survivors to freedom. Their flight inevitably drew parallelisms to no less than the book of Exodus.
I did not like the storytelling too much as it was too disjointed and episodic. The drama was not told in an emotionally involving way. There were scenes that show the Bielski group rob and kill German sympathizers. There was a scene where the Jews beat a captured German officer to death. There was scene where Tuvia led his band of Jews to cross a river. Then there was the climactic (but unrealistic) scene where the ragtag group of civilian Jews fight and win over a fully-armed group of German soldiers who even had a Panzer tank. Yet there seemed to be no fluidity that bound these scenes together.
The actors who played the Bielski brothers do not look like brothers at all. Daniel Craig, who played the idealistic eldest brother Tuvia, looked miscast to me in particular. He did not look like he belonged with the rest of the Jews he led. Liev Schrieber (as the more aggressive Zus) and Jamie Bell (as the young Asael) were more realistic and successful in their portrayal.
Technically, the movie looked average and unrealistic. The art direction and make-up looked haphazard. The editing of the gun battles was erratic. Even the Oscar-nominated musical score was not really memorable. And the overall direction by Edward Zwick seemed without a unifying focus, wasting the potential of a good story.
February 16, 2009
This is a Swedish movie with a lot of internet buzz. Before I watched, I only knew this film puts its own spin on the current vampire trend. I found it interesting to see a European take on the subject, as the Hollywood interpretation of the vampire is getting to be very predictable. The title refers to the legend (which I have not really heard before) that a vampire cannot enter a residential house without being invited in.
This tells the story of Oskar (Kåre Hedebrant), a pale blond 12-year old boy, a loner who is constantly picked on by bullies in school. He was befriended by his similarly lonely new neighbor, a pretty dark-haired 12-year old girl named Eli (a sublime Lina Leandersson). Their friendship develops in the dead of a snowy winter in a Swedish town, while a series of unexplained bloody murders were taking place in the neighborhood. Maybe that is all you need to know about the main plot. The rest is for you to discover while watching this movie.
The European style of film making is there. The slow pace. The straightforward storytelling. The stark sets. The quiet music. The natural actors. It all works for the benefit of this film. The atmosphere is very eerie. The violence while mostly hidden and off-screen was still frank and brutal in execution. The build-up to the actual scene of violence was replete with tension. There were many memorably scary images I have not seen before in other horror films, particularly that scene with the cats, and the climactic scene at the pool.
I think this is only the second Swedish movie I have seen after the classic yet (for me) woefully boring and over-rated Bergman opus "The Seventh Seal". This is a novel experience to watch a European horror film, after getting our fill of Asian horror a few years back. There are already plans to make a Hollywood version of this, and I dread how that would look like (like what they did to "The Ring" or "The Grudge.")
Though ineligible for the Oscar for a Best Foreign Film nomination due to release date problems, "Let The Right One In" has also earned its share of awards. Recently in the Online Film Critics Awards, this film won four awards for foreign film, adapted screenplay (for John Ajvide Lindqvist who adapted his own best-selling novel), breakthrough actor (for Lina Leandersson) and breakthrough director (for Thomas Alfredson).
February 13, 2009
I have not seen a Woody Allen movie for a very long time. In fact I do not even remember the last one. Watching "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" brought it all back -- the incisive and thought-provoking ideas elucidated in the very smart dialogue. Vintage Woody, back to form. Nobody can write with so much neuroses in its varied forms like Woody Allen. You can hear Woody through all the actors pronouncements!
That said, I think the screenplay, while very witty, also had its flaws in its very unexpected plot turns. First, who was the Narrator? He surely helped the story along, but who was he in the first place? However, my main qualm was the way the problem of Vicky got resolved which I found contrived. I did not like it. It seems to be the easy way out.
I'm sure all the men in the audience would agree what a lucky guy Javier Bardem is, sharing the screen bed with three gorgeous women -- Scarlett Johansson, Rebecca Hall and Penelope Cruz. He plays the smouldering Latin lover here, miles away from his Oscar-winning cold killer role last year. No real effort for Bardem in this one, he seems to be just very relaxed and enjoying his fantasy role as the woman-magnet Juan Antonio.
Scarlett Johansson is very natural and carefree as the free-spirited Cristina. Her character makes a key yet sudden decision midway in the film that upsets the status quo. This is another one of my problems with the script. She has certainly come a long way from the girl in "Horse Whisperer." My favorite Scarlett role remains to be Griet in " Girl with a Pearl Earring."
Rebecca Hall looks and acts very different from her confident character in "Frost/Nixon," playing the mousy and conflicted bride Vicky. As the more conservative and rigid character, she had to convey her thoughts and emotions in less words and less body language. Yet she still succeeds to get her character's conflicts across to us.
However, it is Penelope Cruz's character Maria Elena who is far and away the most showy role and she goes to town with it. I did not like the way the character was written, but Ms. Cruz did very well in it, if not a little overdone. She has already won the BAFTA award for Best Supporting Actress. Hers is the only nomination earned by "VCB" in the upcoming Oscars, and is quite favored to win. MIra Sorvino ("Mighty Aprhodite") and Dianne Wiest ("Hannah and her Sisters" and "Bullets Over Broadway") both won their Supporting Actress Oscars in Woody Allen movies. And Ms. Cruz could most likely be next in line.
I should mention one more actress, Patricia Clarkson. She has a short role, yet influential in the development of Vicky's character. Ms. Clarkson does very well in her few minutes on screen.
Overall though, "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" is not entirely a Valentine sort of romantic movie. I'm not really sure why this was nominated (and won) for Best Musical/Comedy in the Golden Globes. While the cinematography, set design, music and the Barcelona location are all fantastic, the topics tackled are quite serious and controversial, especially for our conservative Asian sensitivities. This is not the typical romantic comedy, no real laugh out loud moments. The script provides difficult questions that challenges the audience to think and discuss afterward.
February 9, 2009
This is the 5th and final Oscar Best Picture nominee that I watched. Honestly, this is the prime reason why I watched this. But, I am glad I watched it because the movie really peaked my interest, and I actually enjoyed it. I totally think "Frost/Nixon" is worthy of its slot on the Best Picture shortlist.
This movie recounts an event in the history of American television broadcast, which was totally unknown to me before I watched this film. This was a celebrated interview of the infamous resigned US President Richard M. Nixon by British talk show host David Frost in 1977. However from this rather limited and shallow plot, British playwright Peter Morgan was able to develop a hit play, and from that this very vibrant screenplay.
This is another very potent acting showcase. All of the actors did so well. The two lead stars were the same two who originated these roles in the West End (2006) and on Broadway (2007), and their familiarity with their respective roles shows. All the awards attention is being showered on Frank Langella in his performance as the disgraced Nixon. In fact, he has the lone acting nomination of this film. However, the entire cast should really be recognized as an ensemble.
The supporting actors provide a very lively background for which the principal actors perform. I have to give special mention to Oliver Platt and Sam Rockwell for playing Zelnick and Reston, the research staff of David Frost. I enjoyed ALL of their lines. So funny in their sarcasm. Pretty newcomer Rebecca Hall is the only female member of the cast, and she holds her own in her relatively decorative role as Frost's girlfriend Caroline. And who can forget fierce loyalty of Nixon aide Jack Brennan as played by none other than Kevin Bacon.
My favorite actor in all this was actually Michael Sheen who played the shallow show-biz oriented British talk show host, David Frost. Sheen, whom I only knew previously as Tony Blair in "The Queen," played it light, charismatic and likable as Frost was. He very effectively provided the sharp contrast to the serious and manipulative Nixon, as the script needed to succeed. He should have also been nominated for Best Actor.
Frank Langella worked under the disadvantage that he doesn't look like the very recognizable Richard Nixon. He needed to focus our attention on the inner persona and sharp intellect that Nixon is also known for. Mr. Langella slowly won me over from my initial hesitation of accept him at first, and he had me believing in him in the end. The script had emphasized Nixon's apparent greed for money, his sharp strategic mind and also his monumental pride. Yet at the end, he was unexpectedly still able to project humility (something which may not sit well with a lot of anti-Nixon people).
Unlike "Doubt", "Frost/Nixon" does not betray its theater origin. It was as if it was originally written for the screen. The language of Peter Morgan's script is so alive, evoking both tragedy and humor. This extraordinary writing especially shone in scenes showcasing the British wit of Frost, the mind games of Nixon, and the sarcasm of Frost's advisers. I think the vitality of the script helped the potentially static nature of the plot along and made the directorial job of Ron Howard quite easy.
February 7, 2009
I had no plans to watch a movie last night, but I had an emergency call at the hospital to do a stat operation at 12 midnight. So in order to keep myself awake, I watched "The Wrestler".
This movie follows the life of Randy "The Ram" Robinson, a legendary pro wrestler who was well-liked and famous as he has his own action figure and video game. However, he is now past his prime, almost over his hill, and dealing with big problems about his personal life and his health.
This film is almost a documentary. A lot of times it just shows Randy doing a lot of daily stuff around his camper, his gym, his wrestling arenas, his favorite strip joint, his meat counter in the supermarket, etc. Yet in all this realism, there is something riveting and touching about the whole thing.
The story is actually very predictable and simple. You can foresee the inevitable plot development and even the ending. It seems like you have seen it all before, but set somewhere else. But somehow it does not matter. Plot is secondary to character study in this movie. I liked how Randy's speech at the end wrapped up what the movie was all about. I also liked how the whole movie ended.
This film also shows the world behind the noisy show that is Professional Wrestling -- the surprising camaraderie and good will among the wrestlers, the drugs, the techniques to make the "performance" realistic, the groupies, etc. Very interesting even for non-wrestling fans. However, some wrestling sequences really go over the top bloody, especially the one with the staple gun.
Technically, the whole film is as rough as the world it depicts. The sets, the costumes, the language of the script are all so unpolished, cheap and even trashy. The cinematography is gritty, grainy and shaky, as to lend a very realistic feel to the whole project. You can see "indie" all over it.
One of the women in The Ram's life is his estranged daughter Stephanie (played by Evan Rachel Wood). This character is sort of the weak link in this movie for me. We understand she is all so angry with her father for abandoning her in the past. But one time, she gave her dad a chance, and they had a good bonding time. Yet when he shows up late for their dinner date, I felt her reaction was a bit extreme! (Of course, we don't really know how deep the previous wounds had been.) All fathers in the audience must have felt a pang in their hearts during that sharply-worded scene.
The other woman in his life is Cassidy, Randy's favorite stripper. Marisa Tomei goes all out daring for this electric performance. No conservative camera angles or strategic objects hiding anything. She looks great in this movie, and so does her body! I do not remember any previous film that featured her body so generously before. Her acting is understated and very sensitive. It looked very natural for a role that is so far from how I knew her to be. For this, she was rewarded with a well-deserved Best Supporting Actress nomination by the Academy.
But the main man Mickey Rourke IS The Ram. The line between actor and character is definitely blurry here. There seems to be no distinction at all. The actor does not look a thing like his "9 1/2 Weeks" heyday anymore. You cannot recognize this man to be an actor playing a role. He is clearly living this part. It is as if no obvious acting being done. He was repulsive, disgusting and pathetic, yet he can still manage to evoke sympathy and project dignity. Rourke's amazingly real portrayal of "The Ram" is certainly the centerpiece around which the whole film hinges its Awards credibility.
For this performance, Rourke already won the Best Actor award in the Golden Globes, among others. You can see in his GG acceptance speech how his career actually closely parallels that of Randy "The Ram".
