New Website

I am moving this blog into my new website:

www.joeycloud.net

The official launch date will be 9-11-13. So if you would like to keep reading my thoughts that is where I will be posting in the future. I won't close/delete these entries here, but eventually all these posts will be available over there too. 

You can also 'Like' my Facebook Page to get instant notification when I do post something new! :D

I'll see you over there! :)

TV Review - Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D

Real life's been busy lately, so I haven't had time to drop by the cinema. However I have been very hyped up with Joss Whedon's return to television, so I have been watching the release dates like a hawk for the pilot of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

The story follows events from The Avengers, and sits within the Marvel Cinematic Universe. It was an interesting choice that for the TV follow-up to the highest grossing superhero film, they chose to focus on the 'government agency'. But since it was done by the same guy who gave us Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Firefly, I had great expectations that it was going to work somehow.

I was sad when I realized that this pilot was only 45 minutes, as television pilots tend to be pivotal in helping establish both the longevity, tone and initial fan base of the series, and as such they tend to be epic-fied into something akin to a movie or double episode so that we have enough time to be immersed into their world.

So what did I think of the pilot?

On the plus note, this show looks promising from the pilot. The idea of following how the government agencies goes around doing the background business of keeping tabs on things is not looked at often. We get lots of 'could happen in the real world' crime scene investigation, police drama, mafia stories, law and order, but not much about the actual inner workings of an intelligence organisation dealing with superheroes.

I also liked how the main effort was in keeping the agents human. Every character and personality on the team I liked, with the exception of Grant. I understand he is supposed to be the tough, no-nonsense, mission-oriented muscle in the team, but the pilot did not convince me he can pull it off for an entire series. There is a scene where they went too far in showing he has a 'soft' side.

The biggest positive for me is that they finally have a main Asian cast in this show! It felt awkward for me when I watched Firefly, where all the characters were trained to speak some Mandarin, but there wasn't a single asian character main/recurring cast! Ming Na-Wen is a very underrated Hollywood actress whose most famous role is perhaps Disney's Mulan. She is the same age as my own mother, but still looks so youthful and beautiful, doing fight scenes and working with a cast that is all basically same age as her own children. But her ability to immerse herself into a role is what really makes her an amazing addition to this show. I look forward to seeing what they to with her character. On a side note, Skye played by Chloe Bennet (who is half-asian) is also very very very hot! I think I have a new television crush :)


On the negative side of things, things do feel rushed and basic. They were trying to introduce 7 characters and 2 organisation within 45 minutes. This is not easy, but I think they could have done much better. It feels like they just went with the first plot they thought up of because they were too busy to really write something more unique or interesting. While a couple of twists in the middle section did make way for some interesting interactions, they were so brief that I almost hope they will release an extended edition!

There is another element of the film that was done poorly: the foreshadowing. One of the biggest things that makes us the viewer keep following a show is the element of mystery, the unpredicability of how the narrative unfolds. From the very first scene of seeing Agent Coulsen we are given massive clues of the events that explains how he was apparently dead in The Avengers, but then is alive and kicking to lead this special ops team. I thought that was a trump card they threw away too quickly.

In fact (spoilers ahead), I want to predict two major reveals are for each main character right now (I hope I'm wrong):

• The Agent Coulsen in this show is, in fact, a clone of the original Coulsen who did die, but in order for him not to break down from having an existential crisis like Schwartzenegger in The Sixth Day, 
• A large portion of the story will focus on the developing romantic tension between Skye (the really hot computer hacker) and Agent Grant (the really buff, manly man). They will "get together" by end of season 1 or at least confess their love for each other.

There is one thing I hope they might be clever enough to use within their own cinematic universe as the direction of the story.

At the end of Iron Man 3, we know the leader of Advanced Ideas Mechanics, Killian, and his thinktank member Maya Hansen, who created the Extremis virus, died. However a think tank is not just two people, so there are others in their team that are unaccounted for in that film. It is safe to say that while the film ended triumphantly with Tony Stark thwarting their plans to kill the president thus planting their political puppet, those who have not yet been identified to be connected to Killian, AIM, may have formed or be associated with this Crimson Rising mentioned in the pilot.

So overall, I am happy with this pilot. It looks promising. The characters are fun, the premise leads way to many possible scenarios, so I look forward to next week's episode. Hope that now the 'assembling the team' is done, we get some more juicy material and interactions :)

8 out of 10

Nitpicks (spoilers):

• At the beginning of the pilot when we are introduced to Agent Grant while he was stealing some thing from some rich guy, he keeps switching between the waiter clothing and his own agent clothing, but the way it was cut (with him carrying that super-tech glass platter throughout), it implies he just continuously moved from one place to the next. Where and when did he get changed 3 times? 
• We learn that the Crimson Rising group were looking for volunteers to be experimental subjects for a superhero serum they've been working on. However it is unstable and strong emotions like anger could make them explode like they did in Iron Man 3. Why don't they screen these guys better? And also why don't you also secure them with more financial stability so they don't have to work in a freaking minimum wage FACTORY that was about to make them redundant?
• They worked too hard to try and reference all their previous movies. I'm scared that this connection to the Marvel franchise means that Whedon will have creative restrictions in order to make sure the TV show doesn't deviate from the movie continuum.
• While I really like the cast, the combination of characters, really reeks of a Firefly reboot in Marvel clothing. Then again that's just something a die hard Firefly fan would be affected by.

Review - Elysium

Elysium is a sci-fi film that seemed to bear some resemblance to another film that came out earlier this year, namely, Oblivion. The trailer for this film suggested that it was going to be a "guy from the slums will take on the elite force of the rich and overthrow the system" type story. And, for the most part, it was.

Overall, this was a decent movie. From very early on in the film you can tell that the director had a clear vision of what he wanted this world to look like. The characters were strong and memorable characters, the design of Elysium was fairly unique and distinctive (well, for the modern audience anyway), and despite the presence of shaky cam, most of the action was fairly fun. This film will hold your gaze for the 2 hour as long as you like action or big idea films.

However, I did not find it a very satisfying experience as a sci-fi/action film. It flirted with powerful themes and had the potential to be social commentary, but it mostly gives you a backdrop to draw your own conclusions and speculate. They successfully build up a lot of tension, anticipation and curiosity, but nothing is revealed, and even less is resolved. A lot happens, but it feels like a lot more should have. Despite the intended message, this film leaves you in disbelief that Elysium is at all real. It feels more like a rich person's dream being interrupted by a poor person's dream, and that the natural forces of the real world would have prevented the scenario in the film from ever taking place. A rude awakening.

Nonetheless, I can't say the film is bad. It does try, and there were a few moments that were genuinely shocking and horrifying. I stayed engaged till the end, hoping that they would have tied up some loose ends. And even though they didn't, at least I wasn't bored by the direction they took the film. Elysium is not great even by other films from this year, but it's nowhere near the bottom. It is one of those films that tries to join the Elysium of the film world, but is stopped en route in the vast vacuum of space by a weapon of their own making.

Overall Rating: 6 out of 10.


The Spoiler-containing discussion

Lets start off by saying what I appreciated about this film. I really liked the themes in this film. There is some time spent observing how the rich people live on Elysium, and in particular the cure-for-everything "Med-Pod", which is an important plot device, and represents how health care is exclusive to the wealthy by means of class-based citizenship. The whole concept of having a hospital in your home is very similar to the public and private health systems in many countries.

The ending contains a scene where, after the class barrier has been 'broken' by hacking the Elysium mainframe, an army of autonomous ambulances docked on Elysium immediately rushes back to Earth to cure the poor who are viewed as citizens as well. While the 'equal right to life' bit is clear, they didn't take it to the next step and suggest whether those services are sustainable on the global scale. There is almost a communistic tone with that health care delivery, but at least this bit of the film did get me thinking a lot. We never see those ambulances at work until that ending so I suspect the implication is that there is "more than enough medicine to go around", figuratively speaking, but that the rich was just hoarding it all for themselves in reservation for the possibility of their own ailments.

Another strong theme in this film was desperation. Matt Damon's character faces three levels of desperation: physical (after being exposed to fatal dose of radiation), emotional (after failing to be able to reach Elysium after dreaming of being there for so long) and social (the system doesn't let him get to Elysium in a fair, legal way, but he both wants and needs to).

The physical desperation shatters his ethics, and switches on his survival instinct. He was on parole for theft in the past, but he has been trying to change his ways. But once he knows he was destined to die in 5 days he no longer cares and focuses on any and all means necessary to make it to Elysium to use the Med-Pods.

The emotional desperation almost destroys his relationship with Frey, his kind-of sort-of childhood sweetheart. His inability to keep the promise to bring Frey to Elysium makes him abandon her at a point, and if it weren't for the bad guys kidnapping them onto the space shuttle, they may never be able to reconcile.

The social desperation is expressed more universally, through the other poor people on Earth. How they use illegal vessels to enter Elysium in hopes to use their Med-Pods (I think) is a very real effect of desperation. They do not care that they aren't welcome; they just really want or need to be there. This is almost analogous to the asylum seeker boats entering Australia, except we have 'processing centers' in between so we don't simply deport them back to their home countries. So I guess we're at least a little bit better than Elysium! Just a little though.

I also kind of love how Matt Damon's character is dumb. He is not a brilliant scientist, and he isn't a role model. He wasn't trying to save the world, even at the end of the film. He did seek redemption before dying, but only for Frey. Up until he realized the harm he's caused Frey and her daughter, he really was just trying to save himself, and he never cared about the data heist itself or got involved with the politics on Elysium. He is almost like the Forrest Gump of Sci-Fi, minus the monologues.

Now all the good stuff about it aside, there is one thing that did leave me wanting more.


The subplots

There are many things at stake in this film, and few of them gets resolved in a satisfactory manner. At least half a dozen subplots are introduced, mostly to do with Elysium itself, but all of them are glossed over to keep the focus on Matt Damon's character. The biggest of these underdeveloped subplots, I would argue is the attempted coup by Jodie Foster's character Secretary of Defence Jessica Delacourt...which I'll just refer to as Foster anyway.

During a meeting between Foster and the president of Elysium, she establishes herself as a hardened commander who is not afraid to kill intruders to protect the sovereignty and peace of the habitat, and she hints that she has a past that involved intrusion by people from Earth harming her family's well-being when she questions whether the president has what it takes to preserve the way of life for Elysians. Ironically we know nothing about the president except he has more conservative views on how to govern, most of his character is dictated through Foster's description of his inefficacy in office.

Foster was so convinced that the current government is too timid and 'politically correct' that she plans a coup. With the support of their main Defence contractor, she plans to hack and reset the system to recognize her as the new president, overthrowing the current administration. While her plans are being thwarted indirectly by Matt Damon, she is suddenly killed off by her own agent, and when she is locked in the storage room with Frey, she refuses to be treated by her, and ends up dying.

I interpreted her ending to be one where she has a serious history with people from Earth that caused her to be so wary of them and even ready to instigate a war to be rid of them once and for all. This means that she died stubbornly believing she is part of the superior class, not willing to be in debt to an Earthling. Unfortunately we never really know her back-story so it's hard to appreciate her malice and stubbornness. Perhaps they did explore her character a bit more in an extended cut, though I guess she won't be as villainy then.

But outside of nitpicks, that's the only real issue I had with the film. It is a big one, but doesn't completely destroy the film. It's worth a view even if it's just to experience another vision of a futuristic present.


Finally, the nitpicks

• Elysium's Defence system is so unbalanced. I mean, they have the ability to lock down an entire region of Earth preventing anyone from flying in and out, but at the same time they've had illegal boats, I mean refugee shuttles, as well as another shuttle carrying armed 'resistance' people, who can casually make their ways into the rich people's homes as well as the government headquarters while it was on Code Red Alert? Also that force field that Agent Kruger (the slightly crazy secret agent) is so powerful, but why isn't that a standard feature on those bodyguard robots? I tried not to think too much about this because it was clear from quite early on their focus was never to create a plausible Elysium, merely a symbolic one.
  
• How exactly do they keep the atmosphere inside Elysium human-habitable? It seems like there isn't any shielding or glass walls fully enclosing the 'ceiling', as shuttles can just fly in and start landing without going through any gates, force fields or atmosphere.
  
• That exoskeleton Matt was equipped with. Now I think it's a cool idea, but I was wondering: suppose he did manage to get to Elysium, does the Med-Pod somehow cure him while that thing is drilled into his spine and connected to all of his nerves? I mean I had a picture of him trying to lie down in the pod and it starting to complain because he didn't remove all metal objects before entering what is essentially an MRI that also shoots miracles into your body.
  
• Shaky Cams. Please stop including this effect in movies. It just makes me dizzy and doesn't add to the film in most cases.
  
• Who was the father of Frey's daughter? I was just curious, because from the start of the film they establish quite a bit of romance between Max and Frey. Is Max the father? If not then who is he, why don't they ever mention it?
  
• The radiation chamber. This comes in one of the robot factory scenes where the door to a robot radiation chamber gets jammed and Matt was ordered to fix it, ends up getting trapped in the radiation chamber when it activates, and therefore receiving the fatal dose of radiation which is the catalyst for the rest of the film. But WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU EVER NEED TO RADIATE YOUR ROBOTS? Wouldn't that make them dangerous to be around you? Anyone who works with radiation please let me know if there is a single situation (other than for research purposes) would you need to radiate your equipment.
  

Reel Thoughts - Where did magic realism go?

For movie goers, you would be more familiar with the typical genres of films that come out with more regularity. Firstly you have your superhero movies like The Avengers, Iron Man, Superman, Batman. Then your Kid’s or Family films from Disney, Pixar and Dreamworks. Then there’s also Romance, Drama, Historical Fiction, Comedy, War, Science Fiction, Horror, Mystery, and in recent times, your Fantasy franchises based on young adult novels like Hunger Games, Twilight and the upcoming Mortal Instruments.  

As far as I can tell at least one big budget movie is made under each of these genres, but there is one other type of film that doesn’t seem to get a clear label. This is the genre of Magic Realism. 

For people who read lots of books, magic realism should be a familiar concept. For others the very name of the genre might illustrate some kind of New Age religion or subgenre of Fantasy, but in fact it was a very popular form of film that originated as a flavour of comedy drama in the 80s and 90s. 

The premise of a Magic Realism film is that the story is set in a realistic modern world which looks completely normal, but one magical element also exists naturally within the film. It is almost like one of your superstitions becoming part of your reality, which only the main characters notice, but to everyone else nothing strange is happening. It is science fantasy without the science, romantic comedy with a more edgy scenario, supernatural thriller without the horror or suspense.

Perhaps a couple of examples would help. One of the most definitive examples of Magic Realism in Hollywood is Tom Hank’s Big, where a boy makes a wish in a creepy coin booth to be bigger so he can enjoy adulthood, only to wake up the next day to find that his wish has come true and he is now in his early 20s! The mechanics of how that transformation occurred is not really explored in the story, but rather the consequences of his wish coming true. 

Another movie that might be more familiar to a modern audience is Mel Gibson’s What Women Want, where after being electrocuted in his bathtub he suddenly gains the ability to hear women’s minds. Of course he would exploit the hell out of it but after a while he realises being able to hear their thoughts can be troublesome too, and also changes him when he learns to sees women as human (sort of). Other films that incorporate Magic Realism include Jim Carrey’s Liar Liar, Jennifer Garner in Suddenly 30 (or 13 going on 30), Eddie Murphy’s A Thousand Words, and quite a few more (oh and Meg Ryan’s Just Like Heaven). 

The premise and structure of magic realism films tend to be very similar. Magical phenomenon occurs to main character, main character learns and understands his new gift/curse, main character exploits his gift, then main character learns something about himself through the gift and fixes his life, and magic phenomenon leaves him when he no longer needs it.

The key to recognising a Magic Realism film is the transience of the magic. The gift or curse doesn’t stay with our character(s) beyond the film. The magical element is simply a vehicle that aids character development, creates interesting conflict (often to comedic or dramatic effect) and encourages introspection. It is never meant to be questioned or studied as a permanent feature of the character. This differentiates Magic Realism from other subgenres like Superhero, Science Fantasy and Supernatural.

I’m guessing when I listed these movies, very few people would have actually seen them, let alone heard of them, and it’s not surprising since they only get limited domestic screening in the US nowadays. But once upon a time, magic realism films were international box office successes, largely enjoyed by the critics, but the more recent ones tends to slip under our radar, or not even get a screening opportunity in our cinema. And perhaps because we demand it less they also produce less, causing a negative feedback loop. But why did it go away in the first place?

Firstly, Magic Realism films tend to be mixed with Romantic Comedy Drama, which in itself is a gradually dying genre due to TV serials doing so much better in that respect. They aren’t epic like Lord of the Rings or Batman to draw in large audiences, they don’t win Oscars, and the premise often sounds like amateur fiction that anyone can randomly come up with in their blog. When it comes to big screen comedies, directors and studios are now favouring another subgenre: Frat. 

Frat comedy are where we have characters who are man-children, typically have some sort of bromance fraternity that goes on a roadtrip littering many “unintentionally” offensive, crude or physical jokes that disgust as well as intrigue along the way. 

I dread watching these but I can see why they are gaining ground. We live in a world saturated with political correctness, oversensitive and defensive to even the mention of racisim, sexism, homophobia and classism issues. Film has traditionally been an escape from reality, and so the popularity of films like The Hangover is a reflection on the kind of world we wish we could mess around in for a break from the sterile reality we have imposed on ourselves.

Also, Magic Realism became popular in the past for a very similar reason as Frat comedies are popular today. The 90s was arguably the most ‘boring’ decade, given that we had war in the 1910s, the roaring 20s, depression in the 30s, more wars in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s, economic boom in the 80s, terrorism in 2000s, then civil unrest this decade. 

For most of the 90s, things were going relatively well; multiculturalism spread like wildfire, more countries were developing well, and utopia seemed to be within our grasps. However the family unit itself was starting to break down due to evolving societal values. Industry was growing, entrepreneurship and innovation accelerated, but the personal life suffered due to the lifestyles and career commitments. 

This is why magic realism films emerged and were popular at the time, as almost a self-reminder by busy career-driven professionals to restore some fabrics that holds their family together. They needed to be told by a third party, Hollywood of all people, that family is important; that a miracle may be needed to stop it from falling to pieces.

So after saying all this, am I saying I want more Magic Realism films? 

No. 

Review - The Wolverine

I feel like I've been quite negative with movies of late, so I'll try to be a bit more positive for the next few films (but doesn't mean I won't nitpick!). A few people also tell me I really should loosen up and turn off my brain to just enjoy a film. Now while I generally don't like films that are bad, that doesn't mean I don't have guilty pleasures.

For example, Arnold Schwarzenegger is a really bland actor and his movies tend to be full of cliches, with super straightforward plots and terribly uninteresting villains, but I absolutely adore them. I love silly action, one-liners and over-the-top stuff, but in moderation, and only if it doesn't ruin other things along the way (like Twilight did for vampires).

But just because I watch silly this doesn't mean I turn off my brain, I think enjoying a film while examining what makes it good (or bad) is part of the movie-going experience. Films are a form of art, a means of self-expression, while movies are a form of entertainment. I examine the film aspect while enjoying the movie aspect, and sometimes I have to blur the line because I want to see past what is presented to recognise what the directors, producers and actors intended.

Now that I've gotten this off my chest, onto the film.

The Wolverine is the second spin-off of the X-Men franchise focusing on Logan/Wolverine (portrayed by Hugh Jackman again). Premise? After the events of X-Men 3, where Logan was forced to kill Jean, his lover, he is haunted by the guilt as well as by the deeper prospect of seeing every person he ever cared about die as he continues wandering an eternity with no purpose or identity other than a killing machine. He is then invited by a man who he once saved to Japan, who is now a powerful figure in the technological, corporate and political scene, and offers Logan the greatest gift an immortal man could ever get; mortality.

I'm going to be very brave here, and claim that this is my favorite X-Men film so far (beating out X-Men: First Class). Perhaps my sentiments will change over time, but as I am leaving the cinema fresh in my mind, I can safely say this film was a great experience.

Now having said that, this film isn't perfect. Is the plot predictable? Yes. Are there plot holes or things that just don't make sense? Yes. Are the themes and ideas explored by this film deeper or stronger than in the other X-Men movies? No. But it got one thing really right, and that is the characters (well, most of them).

If you are a seasoned reader you would know that I really care about character development in films, especially if they are a sequel. I feel that being able to relate to or immerse yourself into the character's perspectives on their constructed worlds is why we often want to watch movies. We want to be taken away to an alternate universe where we can do fantastical things or be part of something epic, tragic, dramatic, exciting, or even erotic.

Characters in the story are the vessels that transports us into these worlds and  scenarios. And so if the studios have the audacity to make a sequel to a spin-off film focusing on just one character from the story continuum (imagine Minions 2, Puss in Boots 2, Supergirl 2, The Scorpion King 2 etc), they darn better get it right. And in my opinion, they did so admirably for Wolverine (the character, not the overall movie).

I personally love Hugh Jackman's take on Wolverine throughout all the films. His character has a tragic backstory, and so his character is also tragic. He seeks purpose, redemption, justice, escape, humanity, anything to compensate for the brokenness and animalistic side he carries, especially after being alive for so long. In this film he is pushed further down that path of tragedy to a point where I would say this is as depressing as the character can get. The drama is theatrical, almost Shakespearean, his development as he tries to sort out his existential dread in the midst of solving a conspiracy plot tied to his past and his mutant ability is so intriguing, half the time I forget that this was a superhero movie. He is moral on his own terms, is stronger in weakness, and strongest when protecting the innocent.

The other characters were intriguing too. There are many scenes where the film slows down, detours from the plot to focus more on growing the relationships between the main characters as well as respecting the Japanese cultural backdrop, like the way of the samurai, honor and tradition. There is a lot of atmosphere and serenity in the middle section of the film that I enjoyed. Honestly I really didn't expect so much of this for a film about Wolverine.

As for the action scenes, some are good, some are in fact quite fun, some are okay, and some are hard to watch because of the shaky camera effect modern filmmakers occasionally have a fetish with. But the best fight scenes are the ones where they pause between the punches and katana swinging to show the emotions and thoughts going through Wolverine's mind. They are unspoken words as well as unspoken thoughts. His revelations are expressed as raw emotion, an intense stare at his opponent saying "I know exactly what I am going to do with you. Try me."

The only real thing that I found disappointing is the plot itself, and while for the first half the mystery and complexity of everything happening and unraveling keeps you engaged, the ending, what it all builds up to from the story perspective, is a bit weak. It's the type of ending that you probably could've seen coming based on the events in the first 15 minutes, but deep inside you really hoped they would do something differently, that they would have a smarter reveal. So even though what actually unravels does make sense, I thought there's many ways they could've ended the film that could've made this an even more satisfying film. Some of the villains are also so blunt, not fully fleshed out and just end up feeling like a one-dimensional cardboard cut out of the word "Evil", but not all of them. As it is, the film probes very interesting ideas but doesn't follow through all the way. They return to the status quo so that more X-Men films can be made!

I think I won't have a spoiler-discussion section, because I highly recommend this film and would rather have conversations with people about it face to face. If you love X-Men, or superhero movies in general, or a good film, or even just something that is set in Japan, this is very worth checking out. There is so much about Japan in this film I feel like teachers should show this to their Japanese classes; your students will love you for it!


Overall rating: 8 out of 10.


Just the nitpicks (spoilers)

• For the majority of the film, the Japanese characters speak Japanese to each other but English to Logan. But randomly there will be a few stray scenes where two Japanese characters would suddenly switch to speaking English with each other in the absence of caucasians. Especially between the Yashida family members.
• I don't like how Logan ends up sleeping with Mariko (the girl he was trying to protect from the Yakuza). I mean you can sort of see it happening from the very first scene their eyes meet, next to her dying grandfather's bed. But in between his dreams of ex-lover Jean and trying to fend off the bad guys, it feels a bit troubling, given that you know, Logan is 100 years old and Mariko looks like she is still an undergrad student. They have like nothing in common except her grandfather. I mean I like them both as characters, and Mariko is gorgeous, and if not for the X-Men backdrop, them getting together seems natural (definitely a better love story than Twilight). I just thought it would have been more powerful if he actually resisted the urge for once. Maybe that's the point; his animal instincts are strong. Alternatively, let him choose mortality, so he can commit to a real relationship for once.
• During the pre-climax scene, Logan attempts to remove the healing-factor-removing-spider-bot by performing surgery on himself to extract the spider by hand. He immediately works out how to operate the really high-tech scanner, then proceeds to rip open his cage during his vulnerable state. Even if I can buy that, how on Earth did that spider floating and tapping on Logan's heart inhibit his healing ability? I thought that ability is controlled by the brain? Whatever.
• That mutant with the ability to spit venom is so lame! You can tell she is one of the main villains from the first/second scene you see her, but her motivation is never made clear, especially why or how she is sort-of self-interestedly helping grandpa Yashida. What does she get out of the whole deal? Money? I don't read the comic books, so I don't know whether she does more in those stories, but judging by the movie alone you could have made this film without her and lose nothing. If she was secretly Mystique all this time, that might have tied in better to the franchise, but nope, she's a throwaway and I doubt we'll see her again.
• That Mecha suit revealed at the end is just...wow...suspense of disbelief completely gone. It's just too extreme and out of place compared to the rest of the film. It almost felt like someone else decided to take over direction halfway and say "you know what this film climax is missing? That bad guy from Iron Man 1, only lets make him Japanese!"
• From my understanding, Yukio is not a mutant in the comic books. Her precognitive abilities added in this film seems pointless, or underutilized. How could the Yashida family have brought her in from the slums, and not eventually recognize what a valuable member of their empire she would be for the mutant-genetics research Yashida seems to be obsessed with. Maybe she never revealed to anyone else what she could do until Logan.

Review - Despicable Me 2

I wanted to look at this film Despicable Me 2 last week, but due to illness I had to postpone till today. Now I feel sick again, sick of the self-interested decisions Hollywood studios make when trying to milk its loyal fans by producing sequels in clockwork timing, regardless of whether they can deliver content worthy of the original. I talked about sequels that should be made in my previous post, I guess now I should talk about sequels that shouldn't be made. This was one of them.

Gru, former villain who is now trying to be a good father of his three adopted girls Margo, Edith and Agnes, when the Anti-Villain League calls on his expertise to help find a villain who threatens to wreck havoc upon the world. That's the premise, and a potentially fun one. The only problem is, there isn't actually a real villain in this movie.

To put it lightly, Despicable Me 2 has no surprises, no tensions, no stakes and I would even argue no heart. It plays more like a TV episode than a feature length movie, and has such an unoriginal plot that I almost wanted to ask for a refund. It is as light-hearted as it is light-headed, and even though I did chuckle at a couple of gags here and there, most of the film was teeth-grinding to sit through. The feeling I have is that the producers of this film didn't get what made the original so good, and focused on the wrong aspects of the characters they created. It's really hard to believe that it was the same team that brought us the original. 

The minions plays a much more significant role in this film, which is perhaps the only reason people would want to see this film. They are adorable, but only up to a point. Their cuteness does get you in the earlier parts of the film, but towards the end you feel like you've had about enough of their incomprehensible, abstruse amalgamation of Asianic languages and excess presence in this film. 

None of the original characters get developed, and there is no deeper message or theme anyone can take home. The romance subplot(s) are very forced, the only good bits are surprisingly where the film recognises its own stupidity, but this is bare minimum effort, Saturday morning cartoon quality production. It's almost comparable to Disney sequels, except you have to pay $10 ticket to see it, and be saturated with modern-day pop culture references. Seriously, they have a Bruce Willis reference in this film!! So out of place. 

Kids and adults who are willing to turn off their brains for 99 minutes will probably have a good enough time, but for me I feel betrayed. I get quite invested in movies, good and bad, which is why I have a blog ranting about or advocating for things people should or shouldn't watch. And unfortunately Despicable Me 2 is one I cannot recommend simply because there are better alternatives out there, Epic for one (I'll check out Monsters University at a later date). If you adore the minions, they're making a spin-off focusing on just them, that's the movie they should've taken the spotlight in, not this one.

Anyway, there’s nothing seriously wrong or bad for kids in this film, and I can't say it's the worst thing I've seen this year, but it's definitely below the average, and overall it's not in the same league as the original and was just an unsatisfying movie-going experience.

Overall Rating: 4 out of 10

And now for the Spoilers rant... 

The Mexican 

There is no real villain in this movie. There is a former villain in the form of Gru, a bunch of anti-villains (well just 2 as far as the movie shows), a washed up wannabe villain (El Macho), and an unemployed near-retirement age 'mad scientist' (Doctor Nefario). The whole world of villainy established in the first film was discarded to centralize the attention to Gru’s family, and his daughters’ attempts to hook him up so they can have a mother, and El Macho's very random evil plot: setting a bunch of zombified minions to wreak havoc in the world. Honestly it's isn't really that diabolical compared to stealing the moon and the wonders of the world. Those minions seem easy enough to contain with steel cages. It's essentially Gremlins, but purple.

There is a lot of Mexican stuff in this film. The main* villain El Macho is Mexican, he runs a Mexican restaurant, hosts a Cinco de Mayo at his crib, and even his villain costume is reminiscent of Nacho Libre. While I should be annoyed by this aspect of the film, I actually found it amazing how accurate they encapsulated Mexican culture. The domestic chicken he keeps is not just for laughs, but an actually popular form of pet in Mexico. His metrosexual, generous demeanor is quite spot on, and the fact that his restaurant appears vegetarian is kind of cute, though I doubt most people would have noticed. And I do love those nachos hats (going to try and bake one).

*I use the term main very loosely here, as we only see him in his role in the last 20 minutes of the film

But aside from his Mexican heritage, the villain side of El Macho is one-dimensional, has poorly explained motivations, and the way he 'retires' from villainy 20 years ago was done better by Metroman in Megamind. He also suffers from having the most cliché plans with more holes in his strategy than swiss cheese. 

However his backstory was quite fun in its complete over-indulgence. This type of self-parody is very hit and miss, but I think it was passable this time, even if it doesn’t really match his character in the present. Guess having a family does change you. Wait, if he has a son, what happened to the mother? Why did he fake his death in the first place? Why did he decide to return? What is his purpose of unleashing indestructable minions on the world? 

Don't expect any of these questions to be answered ever, because he really isn't the focus of the film. He is just the McGuffin.

But despite all the flaws in his character design, of all the main characters I think I enjoyed El Macho the most, partly because he is a new character, so I didn't have any expectations of what they were going to do with him, and partly because he did bring something juicier to the film than everyone else, even if it made little to no sense. 

The Girls...

The girls don’t get much developments, except Margo, who I’m guessing is starting to hit puberty in the chronology of these films, and now that her role as a surrogate mother to her younger siblings is gone, she has been reduced to a modern-day teenage girl who is into boys and texting friends 24/7.

I really couldn’t care less about her sub-plot with El Macho’s son Antonio, because it stereotypes both teen girls and boys to a level so ridiculous it makes those Facebook meme-based micro-insights about people look like freaking scientific abstracts! Gru's reaction and over-protectiveness of Margo is so overdone that it undermines any possible message to parents or children they were going for with this part of the story. Also it resolves itself once Margo sees Antonio dancing with another girl. She makes a 'meh boys are stupid' statement and immediately moves on. Lesson learnt? She seems to have the ability to immediately reconfigure her emotions so rapidly as to not feel hurt by infidelity or betrayal. Hmm, maybe it reflects teenage girls nowadays better than I gave it credit for, but it's still boring and uninteresting to watch on the big screen.

Agnes and Edith reprise their exact same roles as before, one being the adorable innocent ticking timebomb, while the other being the almost tomboy ninja warrior who is uninterested in girly things and indifferent to social norms.

The Minions

You can’t invest an entire feature length film on people’s adoration of the Minions, the side characters, unless you give them juicier things to do other than re-hashes of what they did in the previous film. They weren’t hard to watch, but they didn’t add enough to this film to make it as strong as the first. And ironically, despite the trailers and posters indicating that this film would be about the minions, they are actually more of a plot device than the central theme of the movie. We don’t learn anything about their origin, their language, how they ended up working for Gru etc. Guess they're saving those things for the upcoming spin-off in December (which I will not watch, sorry).

I won't talk too much more about the minions, because I never really liked them, at least not as much as some of my other friends do. I think they're cute, but I'm a guy. I don't watch movies simply because it's got cute things in it, but neither am I repelled by it. I just think there was too much of them in this film but they are still mostly unsubstantial fillers.

Gru and Lucy

The romantic subplot between Gru and Lucy is passable, but too straightforward for me to be invested. The experienced moviegoer can tell from even the trailers that Gru and Lucy will get together by the end of the movie, and the question of ‘how’ just never popped up because you know it’s going to follow one of those standard formulas.

On the other hand, The idea that the girls need a mother figure would have been a very good thing to explore, but the film is so wrapped up in the detective story, the minion show, and trying to convincingly establish screen chemistry between Gru and Lucy, they literally only gave the girls 10 seconds from meeting to accepting Lucy as their future mother. The emotional mechanisms and environmental factors that lead to adopted girls accepting someone as their mother is a bit more complicated than a "love at first sight", and I would say was a more interesting thing to explore than all those (almost) meaningless minion abduction scenes, which were neither funny nor consequential. 

I'm probably rambling more than ranting now (it's late), but you see what I'm getting at. They have many potential ways of making Despicable Me 2 a good film. You can have your manly Machos and adorable Minions being adorably naughty and playful. You can have your Gru falling in love, your teenage Margo problems. But you need to find a better balance and connection to tie these subplots together. You need stake-ier climax, stronger motivations for each character to act the way they do. As it is the film feels like a random bunch of scenes stitched together, kind of like how my movie review tends to be a bunch of random rants stitched together by subheadings. The cuteness factor may fill enough butts to seats to satisfy the studio's balance sheets, but it won't get a thumbs up from me if that's the direction they go in future franchises. And if they don't have good ideas, then just don't make these sequels please.

Finally, The Nitpicks

• Despite what the trailers suggested, the Anti-Villain League has very little to do with this film. They are practically invisible and plays virtually no part in the climax and resolution of the film (other than Lucy, who I wouldn’t really consider an important part of their organisation anyway). But having said that...
• Why on earth does the Anti-Villain League have a secret laboratory making chemicals that turn creatures into indestructible monsters? Doesn't that kind of research sound villainy?
• Why did El Macho fake his death in the past? He seems to like the attention and there doesn’t seem to be any motivation for him to commit suicide. Maybe he felt the same thing as Metro-Man from Megamind and just wanted a holiday from villainy.
• When El Macho reveals his big evil plan of unleashing those indestructable minions upon the world, by demonstrating how one of them can eat a bomb and chew on steel saws, how is he able to contain the rest of them in cages when they seem so hyped up?
• Why does Gru and Lucy take 147 dates before getting married? That’s such a random thing to mention, but I guess it establishes that they’ve really made sure they’re right for each other before getting married? Up did it better!
• The AVL arrests Floyd Eagle (the wig store owner), after finding just a jar of the mutagen in his shop, and despite him firmly claiming that he was framed, immediately considers the case solved? Worst anti-villain league ever.
• In the first film, we start and end the film establishing that the world doesn’t know who stole or returned the moon. But in this film it seems like everybody knows, unless Gru or Doctor Nefario was spreading their own story, the only other two who know are Vector (who was stuck on the moon) and Mr Perkins (who I doubt would’ve been very inclined to tell people of Gru’s success). If the AVL knew about their plans to steal the moon/pyramids, why didn't they intervene in the previous film? Were they only formed after those events?
• How does Doctor Nefario know about Lucy and her importance to Gru? Gru and Lucy only got close after the doctor resigned and started working for El Macho, and until Lucy's kidnapping at the party, he doesn't know of her connection to Gru at all, so why does he know to call Gru and have a change of heart when El Macho kidnaps her? 

Reel Thoughts - 5 Films that deserves a sequel.

Most of the times I find myself amazed at the horrible money-grabbing decisions studios make to convert a mediocre film into a franchise, simply because they know it will sell well. However financial success of a film does not always come for genuinely good films. Many of the films that are deemed great had underwhelming performance at the box office, perhaps were not even granted a wider release than select theaters, but in retrospect deserved a far better treatment, which would have increased the chance of their continuation to be greenlit (in place of their lesser competitions).

So I have decided to honor some films I consider worthy of sequels. And obviously if you haven't heard of these films before, definitely check them out!


Number 5. Cool Runnings

I watched this film quite a few years after it was released, and despite its silliness, countless cliches and lazy stereotyping of how Jamaicans and sports people behave, it was a lot of fun and touched me emotionally. It definitely motivated me to keep pursuing athletics through most of high school. In fact I too had a moment of "getting up after falling down and walking to the finish line" as well during one of the little athletics competitions. It's one of the very few live action films Disney ever produced that was good.

Now if you've seen the film and remember the general story, you might think that this film was very self-contained. It was based on a true story, and at the end of the film everything was resolved. They managed to compete in an admirable and respectable manner, they learned what it means to work as a team, and they have their entire nation in support of them. Then the ending shows some text saying that they competed again in the future olympics and that's it.

So even if this film was good enough to warrant a sequel, what could they possibly do with it that isn't a carbon copy of the original or a completely arbitrary conflict? Plenty! Ultimately bob-sledding is a winter sport, and while you can train using makeshift environments to practice at the amateur level, the team would have to travel to colder climates from time to time for training. You can explore the challenges of having a family back at home but being away all the time. You can talk about how the Jamaican team decides they want to have a Jamaican coach instead of the chubby white guy because of national representation, which puts a strain on the friendship between the athletes and Irving (the original coach), as well as the deeper meaning of participating in Olympics.

Obviously I don't expect one to be made, since it's already 20 years after the first one's released (though it hasn't stopped some people from making Independence Day 2). I do think that as traditional as this is a stnadalone sports film, I would've loved to see them take it to the next level and focus on the purpose of competitive sport rather than the spirit of sportspeople.


Number 4. As Good As It Gets

Romantic Comedies rarely get sequels. Partly because we expect a happily ever after by the end of the first film, and thus there isn't much more character development you can work in unless you switch genres altogether. However in As Good As It Gets, the film ends with an uneasy beginning of a relationship, where Melvin is still struggling with his neuroticisms, and Carol still has a son whom Melvin has only seen in passing once. The ending is very open, which means they could have made a second movie to explore some of the more complicated issues with their relationship, such as whether Carol wants Melvin to be her son's stepfather, Melvin getting tangled up with one of his book's die hard fans (especially as he humanises through his relationship with Carol).

Okay maybe such a sequel won't be as strong as the original, but these characters were so well constructed, so well scripted and so chemically reactive when put in the same room, I just want to see more of them!


Number 3. Finding Nemo

Looking at the brief history of Pixar, they have made some groundbreaking film, but also some very questionable decisions in terms of which of their original films they choose to make a sequel. In my opinion, Toy Story was the only one that pulled it off into a franchise. Monsters Inc was a bit risky, especially to make a prequel. Cars was perhaps the worst choice to make a sequel for (except to sell merchandise I guess). But I think everyone wanted to see a sequel for Finding Nemo.

Yes they are making one at long last in 2015. But if any of their films they were to make a sequel this is the one I felt like they definitely should've gone with. I don't think I need to talk any more about it; just wait for the advanced tickets! :)


Number 2. Prince of Egypt

Being Dreamwork's most dramatic animated feature to date, and its most musical, Prince of Egypt blindsided a lot of people with its amazing visuals, well composed soundtrack and effective telling of the biblical story of Moses. It not only became a standard in the library of films churches show their kids in Sunday school, but demonstrated that the stories in the bible can be relevant to a modern audience, whether they believe in its divine origins or not. The characters are human, their conflicts very real, and their growth and relationships very convincing. The story is so tragic and personal it's almost Shakespearean. I've never seen the first half of Moses' story the same again.

It is hard to imagine that the same studio that made Shrek created a film that could rival the best of Disney's traditionally animated films. So why didn't they continue the story? I mean the story of Moses doesn't end until his people reaches the promised land, which is a good 40 years with a lot happening in between (including the giving of the 10 commandments, lots of war with resident nations). There's plenty they could have done in the sequel while remaining faithful to the biblical narrative. Instead we got a direct-to-video Joseph: King of Dreams, which I'd rather not talk about, but the fact that it didn't get a theatrical release probably says it all.


Number 1. Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events

Of all the film franchises based on children's books and young adult fiction, this is the one that I enjoyed the most, especially in terms of film adaptation from a source book. It was a very grim but fascinating film, the child actors were actually good, the story was compelling, Jim Carrey as Count Olaf was really fun, despite being slightly overt at times.  It mostly lives up to its title and I think was a faithful adaptation of the books, and more than broke even at the box office. So why wasn't this film continued?

The main reason is due to lot of instability within Paramount at the time, which kept delaying any potential work on developing the sequel. By the time they did get around to reconsidering it, the original child actors were already in their teenage and could no longer portray the same characters if they were to follow the story's chronology.

I would argue that this film, along with The Lord of The Rings trilogy, which were released around the same time, helped pave the way for Narnia, which was the one that ended up becoming the three-part franchise. While it wasn't horrendous, it certainly wasn't in the same league as Unfortunate Events. If they eventually do make a sequel, even if it's with an entirely different cast, I'd definitely go check it out.

Super Review - Man of Steel

The no-real-spoilers part of the review

Aside from The Host and Iron Man 3, this was the only other film I really wanted to watch this year. Now that I've watched it, I can safely say I've probably watched too many films for my own good, as I'm not enjoying these 'big films' as much as I think I should, I blame the overpopulation of films crowding my brain fighting to be deemed worthy of long term potentiation. Shall I cut back further to maybe only one film a month? Once I finish setting up my website and start working on new projects I probably would have to anyway.

But having said all that, Man of Steel is a film that has great moments but even greater flaws. Perhaps the biggest issues I had with this film stems from the logical liberties the source material took, thus not really the fault of the director or the production team in adapting this material. Between the extensive fight scenes and rapid transitions, I could see moments of genius in the writing that took unreal, fantastical characters from modern parables and make it relevant to a modern audience. The most of the good bits were in the trailers, so if you weren't convinced by the trailer to see the film, then I'd say you should give this a pass.

I have watched the first two Superman films from 1978 and 1980, which from a nostalgic perspective were the most iconic of the comic book films before the 2000s modernized the genre, giving it a more realistic and serious tone to appeal to an increasingly pessimistic world. Honestly I can't say this film is dark as much as it is a tragedy. This is a story about the end of a civilization, and how Kal-El (or Clark Kent/Superman/The Man of Steel) is the remnant of that race, serving as both the hope and the reminder to humanity that "with great power comes great responsibility". There are social, political, psychological and philosophical undertones that could have matched those in The Dark Knight, but too much focus has been placed on fighting and screaming and duelling. Not that they aren't fun to watch but I think half the audience would have gotten bored of it as they came into the film expecting more focus on the psyche and development of Superman as a character.

Their ambition was huge, but being compressed for time you can see they rushed a lot of scenes and probably cut out some important scenes which would have glued character development better. There's a lot of assumptions that you've seen previous films as they gloss over 'familiar' characters, despite being given arguably more screen time and personality than in previous reboots. The back-stories and relationships of most characters felt like genuine improvements over previous attempts, but ironically created more suspense-of-disbelief-killing plot holes, especially on the Kryptonian side of the story.

Hans Zimmer also replaces the originally light-hearted but epic themes with panning and atmospheric music that is supposed to be ominous but also giving a sense of elevation or uplifting. While I appreciate what he was trying to convey, being paired with scenes that are too rushed or chopped up, it's hard to be fully absorbed when you're snatched out of the moment at supersonic speeds every time a fight pops up. Also, the film works so hard to hammer in the new motifs, trying desperately to make you forget John William's classic version, it ends up feeling like they have no variety at all in their soundtrack, with that same drum beat and string pattern drilled into your subconscious.

Perhaps this film deserved a 3-4 hour cut release; that way they can give more time for each of the scenes, and slow down the development so that it feels less like a reader's digest article and more like a novel. Most of the talky bits are actually the least interesting. It is seeing the subtle emotions, the facial expressions of people when they are confronted with the truth, death, hope within the quieter scenes. A lot more was said in a lot less of the film. Also, the action pieces, especially the last ones, were too reminiscent of The Matrix Revolutions; I kept forgetting that it was Superman fighting General Zod as they ripped apart the city while trying to save it.

But overall, the film has lots of intelligence, a lot of depth in between the action pieces, dialogues were mature and well intended, but perhaps too incompatible when what follows are chaotic, city-razing action that is dizzying at best and often excessive. I can see there was a lot of heart put into the film, the visuals, and character development, but at the same time I left the screening with so many unanswered questions. The Steel part of the man was shown very convincingly, but not the Super part, so I guess the choice if the film's title is appropriate. This is a unique and decent reboot, but not a fully satisfactory one. Maybe I shall just wait for its sequel, which given that Snyder is using the approach taken by Nolan, should be the best of the three!

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.


Spoilers-containing-rant ahead!


An alien race without rules.

One of the most glaring problems I found with this film is the back story segments; how clumsily it explains away the destruction of Krypton as well as both Jor-El and Zod's mission to save their race from extinction. We get a really rushed opening act, filled with too much action and "visionary science fiction" show off but not giving enough explanation. You see more of Zod than in the original but understand his motivation even less.

It is quickly established in the opening act that Krypton is a highly advanced civilisation that have mastered space exploration for millenia, yet it is unable to escape its home planet because of core depletion? We see later that both Superman and General Zod's prison ship had no trouble travelling faster than the speed of light to get to Earth, so really at least some evacuation ships should've been able to escape doom. I guess you could argue that the Kryptonians chose not to abandon their dying planet, but that seems opposite to their philosophy of preserving their race, given their previous attempts at finding habitable planets, other civilizations and lots of active spaceflight technology.

We are also told that Krypton has been using genetic engineering for centuries to breed a superior race and also control population. General Zod was evidently born to be a military leader, and Jor-El was born to be some form of scientist/engineer to design...err...spaceships? Lets say their genetic engineering process wasn't perfect, which is why Zod somewhat strayed/distorted from his purpose. But even so, why would Krypton need a military to begin with? That implies they have someone to defend itself against. Was the planet at war? Are there other civilisations out there other than Earth they have seen as a threat? If yes, why didn't they help Krypton in their time of need? So many questions, but this potential larger world is basically overlooked because the theatrical clock is ticking and we need to get to superman, so lets just quickly destroy Krypton so we can get moving!

Also, after so many Superman movies, we still don't really get a satisfactory explanation of how Superman's powers work. Yes this is science fantasy rather than science fiction, but given how hard Snyder was trying to construct this film as if it could happen in our world, it felt really implausible that a Superman who grew up on Earth would only discover his ability to fly in adulthood. I mean, what was he doing during his teen years, where he wasn't popular enough to be hanging out with the cool kids, and living in a farm? Did he seriously spend all that time moping about his identity and never tried exploring his abilities like Spiderman did? Of course, this aspect of the film also has very powerful moments, but we'll get back to Superman in a bit; I'll wrap up one more issue with the Krypton part of this story, and that is the Codex.

Essentially the Codex is the master copy hard drive of Kryptonian DNA, which allows them to engineer any Kryptonian baby tailored to have a particular function in their society. But then Jor-El infuses Kal-El's cells with the Codex. Does that mean Superman is the perfect Kryptonian, or does his blood cells just have two strands of DNA? Also, for something as important as the Codex, you would think that it is more heavily guarded and harder to reach. But nope, Jor-El manages to steal it just by jumping in and out of the breeding pool. By the way, I have to mention this (and probably will a few more times), but there are many scenes in this film that looks heavily influenced by ideas from The Matrix trilogy. Are babies grown in nutrition bubbles on trees really the most efficient way to mass produce offsprings?

Also:

• Do Kryptonians speak English natively, or are they just capable of picking up foreign languages in an instant? Never fully explained!
• If Krypton's gravity is a lot stronger and has a different atmospheric composition, why did Kryptonians look and move exactly like humans do?
• General Zod's men who were sent to the phantom zone are all soldiers, but they also have the scientific and engineering skills to retrofit a prison spaceship's engine into a terraforming engine in space? 
• Why couldn't General Zod just rebuild Krypton on the moon or Mars or Venus? I mean that world-creating thing seems to work to change the planet's environment to suit their needs, so why not just occupy an empty neighbouring planet? Genocide seems to be a really unnecessary way to rebuild your own civilization...

A human race without cliche

On the other hand, the best aspect of this film is definitely the human characters. I don't just mean Lois Lane and the human half of Superman, but also the side characters like Perry White (Daily Planet's editor-in-chief, who is played by Morpheus), the adoptive parents Jonathan and Martha Kent, and to my pleasant surprise, the several military characters with significant screen time like the Lieutenant who Superman initially surrenders to, and the Colonel who has the galls to fight Faora knowing he is far outmatched by this superspeed Krytonian warrior.

Firstly, I can see Nolan's influence on how they reshaped the hero and his 'damsel in distress' into a more gritty, more juicy characters and not just cardboard cutouts of cinematic cliches. I mean yeah they both still make it out alive, but their involvement in the story is a lot more complex and there are times when it's not simply one party saving another, but also both parties ready to take action despite not knowing if either will make it. They are characters who walk the talk, and show both the strength and weaknesses of humanity embedded in their personalities. They are never over the top and never straightforward. Okay Lois Lane is a bit one-note but she is a functional part of the resolution, and not simply the love interest that needs to be saved.

Clark Kent is a lot more fascinating than Superman because you can see how he is born with a good nature, but also struggles with being brought up with human culture, philosophy and morality. His natural instinct to help people is hindered only by his adoptive father's insistence that the world would not accept him if he showed people his true abilities publicly, a belief so strong that he literally died for it when Clark could have saved him. This would have really scarred him as a teenager to feel like he should have saved his adoptive father but also that he shouldn't have.

Unfortunately, the transition from not knowing who he should be to accepting his true heritage and purpose was probably the weakest and least convincing part of his character development, given it was basically a pep talk from a projection of the biological father he never knew that convinced him to instantly don the cape and immediately become Superman.

I really liked the expanded role they gave Perry White. Perhaps he was too smart to be realistic, but at the same time I'm glad he isn't a throwaway cliche about the ignorant boss who only cares about the story and selling newspapers. Similarly the colonel and lieutenant that works most closely with Superman are reasonable people. They don't adopt the "shoot first ask questions later" cliche of military people in most Hollywood action films. Unfortunately the off-screen US government they must answer to is a bit too obvious. Good thing they're off screen.

You do really learn to appreciate what Nolan did to the superhero genre when he transformed what are essentially 2-dimensional characters squeezed into rectangles on a piece of papers into real humans (though still projected through a 2-dimensional rectangular screen). I do love how they make fun of how useless and counterproductive that cape is as well.


That climax and ending...

The crowning failure of Man of Steel has got to be its ending. I'm talking about the entire process of starting the terraforming process until Superman thwarts their plan and kills Zod. Now where do I begin...

Okay lets talk about the terraforming device first. I can buy that the Kryptonian soldiers were able to improvise a "world engine". I can buy that they built defensive transmorphing claws on one of the ends of the engine to prevent sabotage all within the matter of hours. I can even buy that you can stop the engine by crashing two engine to create a micro blackhole that is big enough to absorb the spaceships but conveniently small enough that it doesn't consume at least half of New York (or even all of Earth) thus sparing the sole Daily Planet survivors, but when Lois falls from the plane she is obviously within range of the blackhole since it is picking up building parts tens to hundreds times larger/heavier than her. How on Earth is she still falling AWAY from it? And she is the ONLY thing that is falling away from it. I guess for all the cliches they avoided in the rest of the film, this is what they were making up for.

On the other side of the planet, we also have Superman trying to destroy the other half of the terraforming device. There are several important beat-changers about how Superman's power works here. Firstly, the film suggests that the limit to what he can do is tied to both his exposure to the yellow sun, his belief in his own abilities, as well as the motivation he has for protecting Earth. This is why he is able to continue to fight with super abilities and flight despite being immersed in an increasingly Kryptonian environment. While I can appreciate this symbolism, I have to say it is too far removed from the rest of the film that it makes it hard for me to see him as the same Superman from earlier.

Obviously in a superhero movie, the climax must have action, because it needs to be the point in the film with the highest stakes and greatest conflict between the main protagonist and antagonist. However given that the end of the previous act (around 90 minutes in) was also action-filled, with short pauses here and there, this means that you have to watch a total of about 40 minutes of super fight scenes with the complete devastation of New York as a backdrop. He really makes The Avengers look comparatively professional at saving humanity. Oh well it's his first day on the job so lets give him some slack.


Superman is "as American as they come"?

The last scene of the film is not good or bad. It is however a very quick and possibly unintentional commentary about individualism, patriotism and privacy. Given the recent plethora of stories about how the privacy of American citizens has been ignored by government, the fact that Superman took down a spy satellite is in a way endorsing activites by WikiLeaks, Anonymous and other modern Hacktivists to serving people "on their own terms".

I get a feeling that Snyder wanted to leave us with an image of Superman that is not yet mature, who is good natured but still has some human selfishness. He values his privacy, he wants to serve his country in his own 'ways'. This is a very dangerous view, which the colonel does point out very bluntly. Given the globality of his original mission, what if one day America is no longer the 'good guys'? Does he change his uniform to another color (say red and yellow)?


I'm hoping there will be an extended edition released. I have very strong feelings that this film has more to it than in the theatrical cut. There is definitely a lot of good things in this film, most of it you have to pay attention and think about in retrospect to notice, but the one I saw in the cinema is too rushed to be a fully satsifactory experience, so I think I shall wait for the home media release before watching it again.

Review - Epic

The 2013 summer season of Hollywood movies has been underway for a while now, but in Australia, the animated features are just starting to come out (Monsters University and Despicable Me 2 in a week's time). But one did come out a lot earlier than its competition: Epic. When I saw the trailer for this I was very tempted to skip it because it just looked like a Brave rip-off. Also the anthropomorphic forest kingdom premise in the trailer seemed eerily like FernGully, Avatar and The Borrowers (or for Miyazaki fans, Arrietty). Nonetheless it was the most promising film in theaters to watch before the big two is coming out next week, so fill up my popcorn bucket! :)

Epic is from the same studio that produced the shaky success of Horton Hears a Who, Robots and Rio, none of which are as financially successful as its flagship franchise Ice Age (whose quality has declined with each sequel). I had my reservations of whether they were even in the same league as Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks and will ever able to produce the same level of humor, emotion-wrenching story-telling as these two rivals have in recent years. And in my opinion, they're getting there with this film. in fact, given how sub-par the most recent Pixar films have been you could even say that on a good day, they're comparable.

Epic is a story about Mary Katherine, a girl who is trying to reconnect with her estranged father after her mother passed away, but inadvertently gets reeled into the world of tiny humans her father has been unhealthily obsessing about and trying to prove its existence. Through all the high flying adventures and fast-paced action, she learns about...hmm...family is important?

I'm a bit tired and busy this week so no spoiler/nitpick section this time. What I can say is this: it has lots of creativity, imagination and intelligence packed into it. You can feel there is effort placed at every level, and that the producers really wanted to tell a timeless tale but updated to stay relevant. However the very one thing it tries to teach throughout the film is perhaps the main thing the film fails. There are a lot of pacing issues, a lot of inconsistencies, lots of modern day references and slangs littered throughout. The film also suffers from not knowing what it truly wants to be and so you feel like it's the surprise offspring of Disney, Dreamworks and some computer graphics student's honours year project.

But overall, it is exactly what kids in 2013 will love and can relate to. Their parents should find the film a pleasant experience as well, since there are some family themes embedded and a surprisingly touching undertone with the main character and her father, even though he doesn't get much screen time. Epic may not be a film that will be a classic in the canon of must-watch Animated features, but it certainly surpassed my expectations, and, for the most part, is an epic film.


Overall rating: 7.5 out of 10

Review - The Great Gatsby

The Great Gatsby, 2013 film adaptation/remake of the book can be summarized by one word: excess. Its heavy-handed screenwriting results in excessive scenes to hammer in a relatively simple idea. Its ambitious attempt to make the film an 'experience' results in excessive CGI and choreography clearly designed for 3D. Its desire to be relevant to the audience leads to excessive references to modern issues. And the overarching theme of the story told is also about excess. However, despite all this excess, it is a powerful film, with poignancy that I haven't experienced at the theaters since Watchmen.

There are many things this film does poorly, but also a few things it does really well that I can almost regard it as a great movie. Between the completely flat narration, dizzying array of party colors and anachronisms, the scenes without words, and especially the character development and chemistry between Dicaprio and his co-stars are what kept me invested.

DiCaprio definitely stole the show portraying Gatsby with virtuosity, and while I couldn't see Tobey Maguire without seeing Spiderman, I think he did a decent job being the awkward insider-observer through whose eyes we can view the roaring twenties. What intrigues me is that this film has no clear protagonist or antagonists; it blurs the moral line for every character, including Gatsby and Carraway. Every character evangelizes a world of hedonistic living outshining the virtues of respectability and responsibility, but wisely refrains from condoning it, simply acknowledging it as the social norm.

This film is a tragedy in its core, a scenic tour into the corroded psyche of our society's wealthiest; a social commentary with no purpose other than finger pointing at the wrong, but offering no solution or redemption. There are deeper truths and revelations enveloped between the lines which are unfortunately packaged in a weakish script, so it is likely the average movie-goer will overlook them and be less rewarded for their two hours.

I have not seen the earlier film adaptations nor read the original novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald, but after viewing this film I believe they need a look at. This is a very good story with significance, but a slightly unpleasant movie-going experience, and honestly I think that is what we should be feeling given the subject matter presented. If they didn't try so hard to 3D-ify the movie, or underline the earlier scenes with modern music in the first act, I probably would have appreciated this film's intentions more thoroughly than I did, but since profit margins are one of them, I think this remake will slowly fade from memory.

Overall rating: 7.5 out of 10.


Spoilers Ahead!

Stop this 3D gimmick

I’m very sure almost everyone who watched the 2D screening of this film would complain about how ‘3D’ it felt and how much it distracts us from keeping our attention on the story itself. The CGI and green screen work for this film is very substandard, it is very obvious when they weren’t really shooting on location, and some of the partying scenes have sporadic edits that I can’t appreciate the effort they put (or didn’t put) in representing the time setting correctly.

There has not been many movies which I have watched where 3D added anything to the likeability of the film itself (except maybe Avatar which really was a final year computer graphics project more than a film anyway), and especially with 3D re-releases for Titanic, Jurassic Park, Star Wars I and many others, there’s basically one word justifying their existence; money!

When directors have the audacity to remake classics they generally employ one of three strategies: they re-imagine it (The Karate Kid), they update it (Willy Wonka), or they simply duplicate it with better special effects/visuals/execution (King Kong). This one falls into the last category, but fails in that respect. Everything else in this film except the visuals, powerpoint text floating effects and 3D-ification is actually good. Seriously, what’s the point of making a film adaptation of a novel if you’re going to persistently print the words the narrator is already narrating?

Oh Leo, poor Leo.

Leonardo DiCaprio has almost never and will probably never play a normal character. He always represents some social outlier, a protagonist with a heart of gold but with serious personal problems, and psychological unwellness. His performance here feels almost reminiscent of Catch Me If You Can, and I am a bit troubled by how baby face he still looks despite almost hitting his 40s.

What I do like about his rendition of Gatsby is that he remains true to his cause. He doesn’t represent some political ideal. He just wants to be a rags to riches success story without the evangelistic component (i.e. “if I can do it you can too”), and also a happily ever after with his pre-war sweetheart as a cherry on top of sorts. I’m surprised the director didn’t salt the character with how the war impacted him, or why it didn’t. The whole time setting of being straight after World War I is kind of glossed over in the first 30 baffling minutes of the film, and Gatsby, who I guess is supposed to be a war veteran, only mentions his war experiences in passing.

You can argue that his vision of the future is so strong and so complete, he feels that everything along the way (the war, the bootlegging alcohol, the affair) are ultimately insignificant blips in his grand picture, that it won’t change who he is or pollute his dream. This is admirable, but it completely wastes the potential study/commentary on post-war economic ecstasy in America, which is now nearing a century ago. The story goes from failed commentary in the first act to a personal story in the second and third act. Even more sadly is that the film works better as character study than theme-driven plot, the latter of which is what I think the novel was like.

I like how he uses Carraway to sparingly channel his inner thoughts so that it’s not all a mystery to the audience, and the awkward neighbourhoodship between them are loosely held by the fact that they’re both ‘poor’ people, in that they weren’t born into extravagance and prosperity. Unlike Carraway though, whose entry into West Egg and attempt to join the world of the wealthy was doomed to fail from day one, Gatsby had a real shot of becoming one of them without being one of them.

Gatsby’s attempts to re-kindle his relationship with Daisy through showing off his wealth, his stories and his ability to blend in was almost successful, except that he still held onto one thing from his past: dignity of the poor. He represents the poor who distinguishes people born into wealth as opposed to those who earns it, granting more respect to the latter. But to the wealthy, rich is rich, regardless of how it was obtained, and respectability is from staying rich.

Gatsby does secretly recognise his ‘merits’ are tainted with the same poisonous content that the rich consume every day and night (which he sells), and is haunted by the necessary dealings to uphold his guise that he earned his fortune. This is why when Tom points it out he completely breaks, and finally shows his most vulnerable side. That single moment when he kills Tom with his stare during the confrontation scene is what made DiCaprio such a juicy actor to watch despite playing very similar roles every time. In one glance he summarises his own character’s insecurities, weaknesses and failures, quickly realising he just lost the game of chess against Tom.

Leo doesn’t disappoint when it comes to his characters’ climaxes, but you do have to get there to be fully rewarded for bearing with him being mysterious, distant and unpredictable for the first two acts.

The despicable rich

There is a narrative overtone in this film to suggest that those born into wealth can only think and breathe wealthy, but despite all they possess, a moral compass is not one of them. Their varying degrees of awareness of the poor indicates that they are not necessarily ignorant of the social problems happening between home and work, but that ultimately they will side with their own kind and remain the privileged. This is a particularly strong trait of Daisy, who represents perhaps the more naïve type.

Despite having the capacity to sympathise with Gatsby’s cause and even the courage to suggest running away with Gatsby to a life of presumed peasantry, it is clear she would not have been entirely happy living in frugality. Perhaps Gatsby knew this about her given his proven insight into the self-indulging nature of those attending his parties, which is why he knew if they were to be together, he would have to continue his charade as a wealthy pauper. Running away was not an option despite Daisy's optimistic proposal in the garden. 

And evidently, during the confrontation scene between Tom, Gatsby and Daisy near the end of the movie, it is not the underground means by which Gatsby gained his wealth that bothered her, but the fact that she doesn’t know whether she can completely forget about Tom which caused the hesitation to commit herself to Gatsby. In two lines of dialogue, Gatsby was relegated to an old flame, a ‘mistress’, a thorn in her romantic nostalgia.

And after Gatsby’s outburst, Daisy perhaps had a moment of clarity about herself, realising her allegiance is ultimately with Tom because they are the same ‘kind’ of people. Even though she yearns for the sincerity, devotion and genuine love that Gatsby can offer her, her need for a problem-free lifestyle proves to trump all else. She yearns for true love, but her blood is rich, which is not the currency of happiness.

Tom demonstrates a different attitude with the poor but ultimately arrived at the same conclusion as Daisy did. He evidently understands his place in society, and implicitly knows what the poor goes through. However, instead of desiring to be a part of their world as Daisy (sort of) does, he simply uses them as a means to experience raw pleasure, something that the wealthy, with all their fabricated sensational parties at the Gatsby mansion, is unable to truly experience.

Ton is racist, sexist, classist, elitist and probably a narcissist, which makes him a bit generic to watch but he does carry weight in every scene, partly because he is Gatsby’s greatest opposition, and partly because he is not as oblivious as Daisy. His clarity of the situation with his wife, and acceptance of his role in society gives him confidence to confront Gatsby, to prove an element of superiority the rich has over the poor, which he does successfully.  He is never confused, never in denial, and most importantly, he perhaps knows Gatsby better than anyone else in the film, including Carraway (the cousin/narrator).

So between Tom and Daisy, who are essentially the two side of the same gold coin, the derivable conclusion is that those born rich, no matter their personalities, interests and relationships with others, will always be and can only be rich. They have a heart, which is why they can feel jealousy, grief, sympathy and anger, but it doesn’t have the same capacity as the poor to be selfless, to be content, to live in uncertainty and be fuelled by hope.

Well, at least that’s what I think this film (or the novel) is trying to imply. It’s not a very original idea, but I would say it is more articulate than other recent films about the wealthy, and I think it’s a bit too surreal and extreme a view to be comparable to reality. (Although people like Gina Rinehart does make my case harder to argue)

So, should we steer clear of ‘New York’?

This is the golden question I left the cinema thinking about. On the one hand I do feel disgust for how some rich people enjoy their wealth and freedom from daily labour, on the other hand we all strive for that freedom. Even if the moral of the story is that people who earn their wealth are morally superior at the beginning, being part of their world may slowly change you. The poor are not incorruptible, they just have less opportunity to be tempted and lured to the dark side. Myrtle (Tom's mistress in the 'valley of ashes') is an example of this. 

But just like this film, if you are willing to overlook the excess and decadence, there is something attractive and fascinating about the world of the upper class, about what life is like after fulfilling Maslow's hierarchy of needs. And the picture is not pretty. You either die seeing the possibility of happiness, or live long enough to be disillusioned by how pointless it all really is.

Finally, the nitpicks

• Lots of the party music in the first 30 minutes of the film are major anachronisms. It was not only distracting but also confusing for me; what it was trying to say?
• Tobey Maguire is not a good casting option for the character of Nick Carraway. Not that he did a bad job but his performance is so similar to Peter Parker in Spiderman for someone with good memory I just kept echoing "with great power comes great responsibility" in my head.
• At the end of the movie, how did Myrtle's grieving husband find his way into Gatsby's swimming pool and shoot him? I can buy that a christian car mechanic owns a gun, but earlier in the film we establish that Gatsby had lots of security guards to stop the media from coming through the gates so how did he get in? I guess the night before when Gatsby asked his cleaners to go home he meant everyone including the guards and servents except the butler.
• Since Carraway wrote the entire story down, including how Daisy was actually the one who killed Myrtle and not Gatsby, does this mean that a police investigation might start? This is one of those unresolved/ambiguous bits of the film that annoyed me in the same way Rorschach mailed his diary to the news outlet. Wow that's two connections I've made to Watchmen.