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? 

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. 

Reel Thoughts - My Favorite Musical films

Nothing good in cinema this week. Great Gatsby coming out on Thursday, so for now, I'll do a Top 10 list because it seems to be a topic that will eventually surface in most movie review blogs/vlogs.


I am fairly nostalgic when it comes to movies, especially good ones, and the ones that impress on me the most as a child are the ones I could sing along with, or hum the tunes during a grueling day stacking milk in Coles (back when I worked there part time during high school/uni).

Music adds an extra dimension and depth to the emotions and colors of a film, whether it be in theater or at home. Musicals are distinct from music videos because they are not standalone. They are part of a larger world that wasn't fabricated for the song, but rather the song for the world. Their melodies paint the picture of a scene or the mind of a character. The catchiest ones can instantly suck us back into the film that we haven't seen in a decade. If they're really well composed you only need to hear the opening sequence and you already know what song it is. In the case of musicals, the catchiness factor is even more pronounced because when we hear the song we directly associate it with the film and not just the characters (like the Superman theme does for Superman).

And so, I am here to recommend 7 musicals on film that have greatly impacted me and from which I have either tried to learn their songs on piano, or memorise the lyrics. This list is subjective, and there may be a few worthier candidates but I'm solely going by how these musicals have affected me personally.


No. 7 - The Sound of Music (1965, Broadway)

This film I like a lot, but I put it at the bottom of my 'favorites' list because it is set in World War II. and even though I saw this film when I was only 11 or 12, by that point I've already come across a dozen films about the holocaust, the rise and fall of Nazis, and other war stories and I just wanted something else. Granted this musical is more about Maria and her relationship with the von Trapp family, the backdrop of Germany invading Austria darkened an otherwise very light-hearted and child-friendly film that I wouldn't hesitate to show my kids in the future (if I ever have any, but probably not as many as Captain Georg).

As far musicals go, The Sound of Music greatly impacted how singing is taught in music schools. Its almost infamous song Do-Re-Mi is so instructional that it almost appears that the whole idea of using Do Re Mi Fa So to learn vocal pitch originated from this film; kind of like a pre-Internet meme. But apart from that, songs like My Favorite Things and Climb Ev'ry Mountain are household classics (in Hollywood-loving countries), and being able to remain appealing to people over 60 years since its theatrical release, that's a pretty respectable feat given how fast music comes and goes nowadays.


No. 6 - Mary Poppins (1964, Book to Film)

Supercalifragelisticexplialodocious. Need I say more?

The story itself is a very fun adventure, though I cannot remember the moral of the story except that "family is important" I guess. Mary Poppins was a very fun character to watch and follow around, although the fact that she literally blew away her competition nannies makes her morally grey. This film blurred my perception of reality and imagination, with the whole jumping into the chalk paintings and all. It was really mind-boggling for me when I was six. Half the time I couldn't tell if things were really happening or were the kids just hallucinating/exaggerating it. It was an inventive film to say the least, and makes Inception feel amateurish by comparison.

The songs from this film that secures Mary Poppins in the 6th spot of my list is pretty much Supercalifragelisticexplialodocious. It is a catchy tune at the very least, but that word...I think after my first viewing of this film I spent a good 3 weeks trying to spell it correctly, and was frustrated when Microsoft Word (and even Blogger right now) didn't consider it a real word and red-lined it. It also propelled me into competing with other nerds to memories increasingly long and legit words, starting with antidisestablishmentarianism and ending with Pneumono...something. It was a long time ago. And I think I lost that competition anyway.

Mary Poppins is that spoonful of sugar you need when you're feeling down.


No. 5 - The Butterfly Lovers (1950, Chinese Opera)

I first saw this opera at a period of my life when I finally found passion in music, and began taking my piano lessons more seriously. While Chinese Opera in general is an acquired taste for most, including me, The Butterfly Lovers is one of the few that not only falls into the standard repertoire of all Operatic troupes, but has even found a mainstream audience of adorers.

This is perhaps the result of its Romeo and Juliet-like story (but told about a millenium earlier), or its melodious theme song that expresses holding onto forbidden love in such tragic grandeur, it is perhaps the best musical to introduce the uninitiated to the colorful world of Chinese Opera. I even had the opportunity to play a piano version of its theme song for a cultural festival with a small opera group that my mum is a part of. And while I wouldn't 'highly' recommend it to everyone (like most of the other musicals on this list), I would at least suggest you check out its main song in a violin concert version. Tread carefully.


No. 4 - Aladdin (1992, Disney)

When it comes to musicals, you really do have to give credit to Disney. Every feature animation they have made since at least the 50s has introduced memorable and influential songs that finds its way into the leisure piano players' repertoire, orchestral covers. The Lion King, Mulan, Beauty and the Beast and Tangled are just a few of the films that contains songs I love to watch even as an adult, and every time the song numbers pop up I would find myself humming along to it.

However I put Aladdin as my recommended one because the arabic flavor Prince Ali and the duet A Whole New World came to me at the perfect time where society was becoming more and more open to new ideas, to exploring the frontier of science and technology, and also became more aware of the issues with classism. Not that the film was a commentary on these issues, but many did subconsciously associate the story of princess Jasmine being shown the world by the common peasant Aladdin with how the wealthy are blind to the lives of the common folk.


No. 3 - Amadeus (1984, Historical Fiction)

This film has no songs; it only has Mozart's works. In fact, by definition this isn't a musical. But it is such a powerful drama that makes flawless use of the namesake composer's music that I just never tire of watching it. The acting in this film is great, the story (despite being fiction-y) is great, Mozart is great, and compared to many other historical dramas/fictions about other composers in the classical/romantic era, this is a film that even non-musicians would be influenced by and perhaps even get a glimpse into the psychology of the gifted savant. It may not be a musical that you can hum the tunes of, but it is a film that can change the tempo of your heart.


No. 2 - The Phantom of the Opera (1986 version, Broadway)

While I actually don't like the story of The Phantom himself (who is basically a creepy musical version of Quasimodo), in terms of the total number of songs I like within one film, this one takes the trophy. So which songs do I like? All of them (with the exception of maybe Prima Donna). In my opinion if you have never experienced Andrew Lloyd Webber before, this is the one you absolutely must check out.

And please don't get me started on the 2004 film version. Gerard Butler singing is one of the few things I wish to blot out from my memories before I turn 30. Come to think of it perhaps it's a good thing I gave Les Mis a skip this year given what everyone's said about Russell Crowe singing.


No. 1 - Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 version, Book to Film)

This film made me like sweets. I'm not even joking.

Prior to seeing this film on one of my family's Tuesday video rental nights (a family tradition before I turned 16), I didn't care much about sweets. Not that I wouldn't eat them, but I had no preference and just munched whatever was available in the kitchen or on the receptionists' desk at the dentist. Once I saw the wonderful world inside Wonka factory, it granted my eyes the ability to taste the sweets. It realized fantastic snacks that I could only hope to try.

I became obsessed with trying every type of sweet in the world and planning to own a candy bar in my own home some day with the flavors, shapes, colors and brands that I enjoy. This obsession didn't fade until I was well into my uni studies. In fact right now I have partly realized this 'dream' by having a row of confectionaries on my tallboy, which I deliberately keep out of immediate arm's reach so I don't gobble them up so quickly. (The kitchen on the other hand is too far!)

Aside from my nostalgia, Willy Wonka is an overall perfect musical. The story has a clear lesson for kids, the songs are wonderful (especially the Oompa Loompa ones), and it creates exactly the feelings and atmospheres you'd want to be feeling as you entered the factory with the main characters, or as they went through the crazy tunnels, or when one of the kids gets picked off. While I haven't watched it in a long time, I still remember most if not all of the scenes because they are all so wonderfully colored, which made me feel so many things when I watched it. Willy Wonka certainly created the sweetest nostalgia for me of any musicals I have seen (so far).


Notable mentions:

• Wizard of Oz (1939, Broadway)
• Fantasia (1940, Disney)
• West Side Story (1961, Broadway)
• Beauty and the beast (1987, Disney)
• The Lion King (1994, Disney)
• Mulan (1998, Disney)
• The Prince of Egypt (1998, Dreamworks)

Review - The Call

The Call is my first true thriller/suspense film I have watched since Panic Room. I rarely watch them because they rarely provide the 'thrill' or 'suspense' the namesake suggests. Paranormal Activity being the least effective of these, and perhaps Stephen King's stories-made-to-film being the more effective ones within the genre for me. Nonetheless I haven't checked out a thriller for a while so I decided to give this one a try in place of tired alternatives currently showing in theatres near me.

The premise? Jordan is a 911 operator who was traumatized by directly witnessing her failure to help one of her callers out of trouble, and when the same person attacks again, she makes it a personal mission to stop him from getting away.

For a film that claims itself to be a suspense, only near the end did I find myself occasionally at the edge of my seat. Rather, I think The Call is better described as high-stakes mystery solving. There are elements in this film that are quite baked, lack of character design, and mostly weak ideas recycled from other films and even television shows (in particular Dexter), but the execution of some scenes and Halle Berry's performance fully justify for the rest of the film.

The creative use of camera focus, the film's heavy investment in Halle Berry's character and sparing use of one-liners pushes this film into the realm of high-concept films, but most audience would probably be deprived of these subtleties due to the rapid editing techniques chosen to supposedly create tension, but really just interrupts us holding our breaths. It also offers an unclear or unconvincing message which I couldn't really take home.

Anyway. For thriller/suspense addicts, this is a lighter but zesty choice for a night screening at home, but I wouldn't recommend to see in the theater as its suspense is not grounded in sound effects or gruesome imagery, which is unfortunate in my opinion.

Overall Rating: 6 out of 10.

Spoilers Ahead!

Halle Berry

Basically everything good and bad about this film can be summarised by looking the character of Jordan. The opening sequence of this film shows what happened 6 months earlier, and quickly establishes the personality, character and role of Jordan in her work environment. It introduces a whole host of character we can recognise by their stereotype relationships to the main character (friend-colleague, boss, boyfriend, boyfriend's friends, etc). These characters are glossed over so quickly and given such a placid script it is hard to care about them. Perhaps that was the director's intention but that's an awfully large gamble that we like the main character.

And this type of gambling pops up again with the next victim Casey (Abigail Breslin) who we (and Jordan) follow through the rest of movie after the time jump, just as we were given seemingly unrelated scenes of her going girlfriend-shopping, and is suddenly launched into a main character role after being kidnapped. But since our brains hadn't decided if we needed to pay attention to her up till that point, it is hard to recall her face and personality when it's so dark in the trunk. And again, her personality didn't matter except for her transition from the "I'm afraid, help me!" to the "I'm a strong woman capable of defending myself", which only works in a few moments.

Jordan is also the lone wolf protagonist in this film. This is the character whom, when the system fails, must abandon the system to solve the case by some other rogue means. Hollywood action films love exploiting this template till we're tired of it, but here it actually works for the better instead of making me want to rub my face with sandpaper. The ending does paint a few darker streaks in her character which I enjoyed, as it shows how ethically ambiguous people in the police force can be. They are humans firsts and public servants second. And judging by the tone of the ending, it almost feels like the intention was to leave it an open-ended question of whether the girls had the right or moral justification to leave him for dead like that.

One of the big opportunity this film discards was fully exploring the psyche of the serial kidnapper/killer Michael (Michael Eklund), and giving him and Jordan a few more lines. The film leaves enough clues about his character/motivations by trailing the police officers who raid his family's house, and by showing his 'process' with his victims. But these scenes passes so quickly, I think the screenwriter's only interest was to create an artificial path for Jordan to be able to sneak in and save Casey.

The locus of this film is really Jordan, and where she is written well, the film works, and where aspects of her are overlooked or poorly scripted, the film falls apart and sucks us out of the story. Casey doesn't leave an impression, while the serial killer does, and Jordan's boss is perhaps the only other person that does as well, mostly because for half the film it's hard to gauge where on the good guys/bad guys spectrum she sits on, and her personal relationship with Jordon. Her professionalism in spite of the situation is surprisingly compelling, and I was surprised they just cast her aside after she sends Jordon home. No commentary or deeper message?


Disproportionate suspense

As I mentioned, I don't watch a lot of suspense/thriller films, so I may be a bit harsh in how I view these films and perhaps not understand why they exist. I find that people who watch different genres of films tend to be filling some sort of philosophical gap in their life. Those who like comedy tend to have unhappiness or disappointments in their own lives. Those who like action tend to have overprotective/restrictive parents, and those who like fantasy/sci-fi genres tend to have social anxiety.

Of course this is a generalisation that no longer applies when put in context, but my issue is that I don't know what 'stereotype' of people tend to watch thrillers/suspense. I have friends of all sorts that enjoy Silence of the Lamb, so it's really hard to pin down what part of our emotions or life does it compensate for. Do people just like subjecting themselves to tension because their lives are too relaxed and easygoing? Does it help us mold our own survival instincts?

In any case, this film does provide the suspense they want, but in an uneven distribution across the film. There are like 3-4 tense moments almost consecutively, not allowing the audience to become satisfied, and then 20 minutes goes by without another tense scene because it's just 'clockwork CSI stuff happening' but not 'something horrible might happen any moment'. So it doesn't cue the audience to get suspenseful; it just kind of throws it at you before you're ready, leaving you to wonder "was I meant to be tense just then?"

6 months of guilt 

A lot of what happened to Jordan between in the 6 months time jumps are summarized by Anxiety meds in her locker and her retasking as an trainer instead of an operator. All we are shown is that she is still on the road to healing and self-forgiveness. It is effective in itself, and her redemptive arc isn't contrived, but something still feels disconnected.

On the way home I did think about it and it finally hit me; her redemption is at the cost of being a role model protagonist. It rings closer to home when I thought about the ending to Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins. In that film after seeing how Bruce grows and embraces his avatar to be a symbol for justice, we expect him to make a righteous decision when fighting Ra's al Ghul on the train. But no, he decides to just let Ra's die even though he could have saved him and handed him to the police force. His "I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you either" was not a neutral stand morally speaking. In fact, he did indirectly kill Ra's since he instructed commissioner Gordon to take down the tracks so the train wouldn't make it to Wayne Tower. So in fact he broke his 'one rule' (The Dark Knight) very early on in his career as Batman. It wasn't even a dilemma, it was simply "something that had to be done and there was no other way I could have done it".

So back to this film. Jordon preaches several principles as a 911 operator to the interns/newbies, including "don't ever make a promise", and "don't get personal". Yet she broke both rules and yet everything worked out well for her and Casey. Where does that take us except nowhere? This type of message which makes us think but provides contradicting signposts and ambiguous conclusions we could draw, is what made the film surreal and hard to take fully seriously. In many ways the world on the 911 operator's side of the conversation did fascinate me, and Brad Anderson (the director) seemed to have done his research when trying to represent the real people in this profession. But with how this story takes a dump on the 911 operator's principles, rules, processes and purpose, all I can say is that they'll have to call me again to clarify what they were trying to say.

Maybe I'll take a look at this film again in 6 months and see how it holds up, and update this review if I've been unfair; my reviews have been more rants than fair analyses lately. Maybe I should try giving it a few more days to ponder before writing...though time is always against me (which was also the point)! >.<


Finally, the nitpicks

• While it is understandable that Jordan was deeply affected by her failure to help a girl from the prowler 6 months ago, why was that girl special compared to the other victims/PRs she had to deal with everyday? I would've thought suiciders and medical emergencies are equally serious and life-threatening.
• Apparently when there's a kidnapping happening, the other 911 operators are allowed to stop answering their 911 calls to stay tuned to what's happening with Jordan's. 
• When Jordon gives a tour of her workplace to some interns/students, it is implied that "The Hive" (the 911 call center) handles all the emergency call cases across greater Los Angeles. Given that LA has a population size of 3 million or more people, I would've thought they needed more people than the dozen or so staffs to handle the influx of 911 calls. And given they can seemingly choose to leave their station and go to a 'quiet room' at any given time, the caller queue must be super long!
• Who on Earth is Terence? This guy calls 911 so many times that the staff recognises him and knows his issues aren't emergencies, but shouldn't he get in trouble for holding up limited resources to respond to real emergencies?

Review - Star Trek into Darkness

Lets get one thing clear: I am not a trekkie. I have screened a couple of the Star Trek films and seen a few of the TV episodes in passing, particularly Wrath of Khan. I have also watched the previous Star Trek directed by J.J. Abrams, which I enjoyed (mostly) though I was told it lacked the philosophical depth and thematic layers most of its predecessors. As such, the non-spoiler part of the review will be strictly from my experience of the film in itself and as a sequel to the 2009 version only, not encompassing the rest of the franchise. However in the spoiler section I will let my sentiments about the earlier films in the franchise 'influence' my opinion.

In one sentence, Star Trek Into Darkness lives up to its name and is superior to its immediate predecessor, giving us fun characters, plenty of action and some food for thought about society. This one does explore darker themes than the original and poses interesting (though not very deep) questions in between all the fighting and often incomprehensible dialogue. It has a memorable villain in the form of Benedict Cumberbatch and some juicy performances coming out of the main characters, especially Zachary Quinto (Spock) and Zoe Zaldana (Uhura).

When you have a film that has an ensemble cast like in this film, it is demonstrably hard to develop every main character, but I do appreciate what little we get, even if it's almost feeling like a sitcom at times.

There are a few gaping holes in the story that distract the critical thinker, and many obvious establishing scenes which screams at you the potential resolution of the story, which disappointingly lightens up the film too quickly and strips it of the poignancy achieved just two scenes ago. But if you're willing to turn you brain down to "just here to enjoy some space adventure" this film is worth the price of admission, but I would say a rewatch is not warranted unless you want to learn all the jargon and intricacies of the Star Trek universe.

Overall rating: 7 out of 10.

Spoilers ahead!

To boldly go where Star Trek has gone before

The idea of reviving Khan with a slightly modified backstory was probably the strongest aspect of the film. The first half he was able to fool not only the crew of the USS Enterprise but also us the audience with his John Harrison persona the second half you really couldn't see what he's thinking except for what he shows you. Cumberbatch really respected the original character, and I feel that he pulled off the super-intelligent warrior character as strongly as Ricardo Montalban did back in the 1982, without all the mexican/native american dressup or lovely hair. Some might consider this casting choice whitewashing but it didn't bother me personally as I am not American or a Trekkie. It would have been too obvious who this character was if he resembled the original Khan.

There are a few other easter eggs in the film that may either appeal to or annoy fans of the rest of the franchise, especially with the role reversal of Kirk and Spock as Spock is the one who died in the original, whereas Kirk 'dies' instead. Spock's yelling of Khan's name out of rage and anger is nowhere near as impressive as William Shatner's passing a kidney stone, but I'm smiling for his attempt.

Unfortunately the film's abundance of reference to the rest of the Star Trek world is also what strips it of potentially something more influential. Its unwillingness of the J.J. Abrams to actually kill off either Khan or Kirk in the film rings weak to me, given one of the themes in this film is about self-sacrifice for the greater good. Instead, we get a fake out death with Kirk, and Khan goes back into hibernation. In fact it's been a while since I've seen a franchise movie where they actually kill off one of their main characters. While it's understandable they want to keep their doors open for more sequels, wouldn't it be more interesting if the next film opens with the lementing of a fallen ally?

This is the element they changed from how Wrath of Khan that would've made the film work for me. Indeed they brought him back to life in the next film but nobody knew that at the time, and they were genuinely shocked and affected by the sacrifice Spock made for his crew, leading to the legacy of his philosophy "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

So this halfway approach to paying homage and being its own creation stunts the impact it has on the audience from a story telling point, as the only major change they made in this film is arguably the one thing I thought they should have kept, even if it was Kirk in place of Spock.


Everyone can be captain

There are three issues raised and discussed in this film: the role of logic versus instinct, the power of emotions such as anger and compassion, and finally the role of the captain. The last one is perhaps the only one I felt was not addressed properly.

I love how casually the seat of the captain is passed around. First film we saw Pike, Spock, Kirk and Chekov "take the captain's seat". Now we see Hikaru Sulu take the seat for a bit as well. While I understand the chain of command style of starfleet contingency planning, I sense the film is promoting the concept that anyone can be captain, provided they are brave enough to take the seat.

This democratization of authority actually messes up the lesson Pike was trying to teach Kirk at the beginning of the film. What are we supposed to take from this film about leading a crew? Anyone can do it as long as they have to? Only those who are mature and wise should lead? Or those who are willing to put their lives on the line for his crew? I felt that the lesson Kirk learns is just the result of him unlearning his development in the previous film, or that it wasn't an issue he had to begin with. Also the fact that Kirk and Spock, being the most senior officers on the ship, is always doing the things themselves, defeats the whole point of delegation and having a crew.

You know the funny thing too is that, I think Spock should be USS Enterprise's captain. He is logical, but he  does have feelings, and after the first film he recognizes it, and has since learned when it is appropriate to feel the emotions. Kirk on the other hand has all the wrong motivations at every step. First he chases after a villain simply as a revenge for Pike, secondly he disobeys his directive because he has compassion for a criminal, and thirdly he sacrifices himself to save the ship even though a ship without a captain is far more severe than a ship without its backup engineer. This type of cinematic cliche makes you wonder whether there is any value in being the leader of a pack when you do everything yourself anyway. All the redshirts ever do is die or look really intense and scared.


Klingons!!

One thing Star Trek fans would appreciate about this film over the past is that there are Klingons speaking Klingon, as well as Uhura who gives it a shot as well. While this scene was brief and they get wiped out embarrassingly quickly, we the audience sorely needed to see some more aliens. I guess the only problem with this is that the warping technology has obstructed our ability to geographically pinpoint the Klingon empire. All we know is they are far away from Earth but have no idea in what direction or how far away.

This is important because for all the filmmaker's effort to integrate this film into the original canon, they are showing surprisingly little of the overall universe, and typically the scenarios are all isolated and feels detached from the rest of the universe, and thus the concept and scale of the 'federation' can yet be appreciated.

Perhaps this was the limit to which Abrams was willing to show. Just cameos of notable elements, characters, species and cliches of the original, but no substantial exploration of the world in which we want to immerse ourselves in. It may be out of fear of the reprecussions from trekkies for misrepresenting or deviating from the franchise, it may just be out of calculated decision in marketing, but again a franchise film has been stripped of a 'great' status in exchange for profitability and general acceptance.


Finally, the nitpicks

• Protocol emergency meetings for top senior commanders of Starfleet should not take place on high floors in publically accessible buildings with fully visible windows, and definitely shouldn't be written in a regulation book that every Starfleet officer has read.
• The torpedos are dumb. Aside from its double use as a cryogenic coffin, we see that Carol disarms the torpedo by simply ripping out some unit and bundle of wires, when not two minutes ago she implied that any incorrect severing of the wires would immediately trigger the warhead to explode. That's pretty poor design given it's from a supposedly super intelligent Khan (but more forgivable than Cerberus in Olympus has Fallen).
• Kirk and Scotty's cell phones. While Kirk is at Chronos (inside the Klingon space) he makes a phone call to Scotty who is on Earth. Even if I can accept that their communication seems to be instantaneous despite being many many light years apart, how can it be that, after USS enterprise's comms were disabled by Admiral Marcus, the cell phone still works? I mean I would have imagined that a communication blackout includes cell phones. Guess we'll be seeing Star Trek phone popping up in the shops soon!
• Running around on the ship. Given that they have beaming capability which can let them teleport from outer space onto precise locations in a planet thousands of kilometers away, you would think that they have built internal teleportation device to allow crew members to instantly access any part of the ship rather than having to run everywhere. This would be particularly important if say, some opponent shoots and destroyed sections of your ship. Oh wait...
• Why is Starfleet keeping these superintelligent humans alive for 300 years if they are too dangerous to awaken? They already tried to usurp humanity in a Eugenics war back then, so what makes them think keeping them frozen indefinitely might cause a change of heart/nature later on? I know simply executing them might sound bad, but it's 72 people against the safety, freedom and wellbeing of billions if not trillions. Plus the cost to keep them alive all this time must be burning a hole through their federal budget!
• Coordinates for Jupiter makes no sense. Khan gives Kirk the coordinates of where the secret advanced ship build by Admiral Marcus. But there can't be coordinates for a planet that is in active orbit. Jupiter is orbiting around the sun, moving at speeds of over 13km/s. The universe has no preferred inertial frame of reference, thus by the time Scotty got to those coordinate Jupiter would have flown away to another coordinate. Also given how large the universe is, and how much of it Starfleet seems to have explored already, an 8-digit coordinate would only give a resolution of a solar system, kind of like trying to find your street while Google Maps is zoomed to see all of Australia.
• The use of Khan's blood to revive Kirk was a bit too obvious.
• Jim Kirk's reading of the famous Star Trek quote isn't as powerful as Leonard Nimoy in the previous film.
• Carol sure got over the gruesomely visual death of her father fairly quickly! 
•