Today is July 21, 2007.

For some, this day doesn't necessarily mean anything; probably another droning day with an uneventful bore of a Saturday. But to billions of fans to the Harry Potter series around the globe, today is a difficult day to go through.

To others, the books might be just another set of books, pages to be read, words to gulped down, stories to be comprehended -€“ a passing form of entertainment that generally doesn't leave a legacy behind. But to come and think of it, this is the only series of books that pulled the whole generation to reading again, reviving the world from almost illiteracy countenance, children and adults alike. It's no escape this is a phenomenon, and things like this, I'm afraid could sometimes happen only once in a lifetime.

I could still remember as a young high school student of 12, I was encapsulated by the Potter universe not by my own will. It was the National Book Week and we, students, were forced to read a book material. As a non-reader, I horribly detest books questioning what goodness does it bring, what benefit shall we get, but as being forced to read one and to even adapt it on stage, spot on, I laid my sights on Peter Pan by J. M. Barrie. I thought it was such an easy book to read, so childish, no troubles, no challenges, and no mishmash sort of plots. Reading it will be swift, no worries at all, so I could focus more in the world of academia. Then it turned out that Peter Pan was already taken by somebody else. Damn, I thought. Well I never really thought that word at the time; I was too innocent for swearwords. Maybe Hansel and Gretel would be easy as well...

It was my friend, also my classmate, who recommended Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. By the time I heard it from her, I was asking, "What's Harry Potter? A dog?" But the question shouldn't be "what", but should be "who" instead. I've read the book, although with great difficulty as I do not read anything like any book, and felt like a bloody stranger in this world of wizards. It was then I realised, what I was reading was a sequel, not really the first book. Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone came to my hands, and later also fell into my head that it's actually Philosopher's Stone. Blemmin' Americans change things so much.

Out of being forced to read just ONE book, I later found myself reading so cautiously and carefully the third book in the series already, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. It was such a doorstopper that I could ALMOST swap my presence in school for this book. As though possessed by an otherworld spirit, I suddenly pulled out my pen and paper (this all happened while in a classroom lesson; the subject was Algebra and it was so definitely boring that I thought of doing something else important to me). It was then I started writing own Harry Potter novel, out of intermediate papers. Whilst everyone gladly listened to the lessons, and as the teacher was led to believe that I was attentive and really copying what's written in the board, she doesn't know that I was lost in space writing my own craft of universe already. Everything just melted away and felt as though it was just me existing, holding my pen and writing as though there was no tomorrow. A year later in the inattentive school lessons, the draft was finished and I called it Harry Potter and the Broken Moon Amulet, not to boast but was a cult success in our high school grounds. It was 372-pages long and until now, I still couldn't believe that I had actually written it all, from a boy who never liked books, who disliked the idea of writing.

Then Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire came into my hands, in which my sister in United Kingdom started giving me the whole series in UK Editions, which I am so glad because it's so rare in the Philippines to find one (well, extinct actually), followed by the dark and gloomy Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the thickest of the series, like a massive brick. I was already 17 years old, 2005, when I flipped the last page of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the mounting sixth of the series.

The world had already turned. From a no-knowing eyed 12-year-old boy, who liked stories but hated the form of books, who loved videogames and playing games alike, who once dreamed to become an architectural engineer, to a pilot, to a computer programmer (never a doctor) - now wanted nothing else in the world but to become a writer. It's a silly thing to say but no matter how silly it is, this is something worth holding on to.

Now Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is almost at our doorstep; and the end is inevitable. J. K. Rowling had influenced a lot of today's generation and turned the children from videogames, from skipping school, from total ignorance to the light of reading. May it be different cultures in the world, different races, different manners, Harry's world serves as a link that unites each other. Sometimes it's hard to let go of something that has already been a part of our lives, and the Harry Potter books became a big chunk of my teenage years, letting me believe that sometimes the greatest weapons in the world are the pen, paper and the brain. J. K. Rowling, once a struggling single-mother, who goes to cafes to write in order to save her heating bills at home and to shoulder her child's life, is now the world's most successful writer. Her rags-to-riches story is an inspiration to many and that teaches us that letting go of our dreams could be our biggest mistake of all.

It's always sad to say goodbye. Today is already the end, but it's also a beginning, a challenge to the world. The Harry Potter series might have become pop culture phenomena, but I believe there's something more to it than there will ever be. The children's weakness is of course magic, but the cleverness and humanity of J. K. Rowling, the very essence and message of her stories, is that there's always some magic left in this world no matter how cruel this life could be. Love, friendship and family, are the most magical things on Earth and Rowling proves that they are indeed worth waving our wands about, fighting for what we believe in. Children who grew up with the Harry Potter books, and who truly understand its message and clarity of voice, will become good humans in the near future I believe.

The question that's reverberating now in our eardrums is "Will Harry live or die?" in this last and concluding book of the series. It has been my prediction for ages and ages that Harry is the final Horcrux in which Voldemort's soul was penetrated into, and that based on the prophecy: "Neither one will live while the other survives", tells us that one should kill the other. Harry might kill Voldemort; or Voldemort might kill Harry; or both shall die. It's a dreadful conclusion but if it brings impact to the whole story, I trust J. K. Rowling to give justice to her hardwork. Finally in a few days, I will run through the last adventure myself, reading it with grace, and find out Harry's final fate.

But it's not supposed to be the question between whether Harry lives or dies. The important thing is that the Harry Potter world will remain here, always ready to influence the future generations with this classic saga. Although no more books to wait for, as we got used year after year of waiting, this is finally the end, and as I realised this is the day, the impact came rolling down like thunders. These were the books that changed my life, influenced me in all ways possible, and led me to a different road rarely trailed by any. These were also the books the opened my imagination and also opened my eyes to the world.

Everyone grows up. It's a scientific fact. But the Harry Potter books will always bring the kids in us, dreaming of adventures, pulling our wands, enchanting spells, and dreaming of fighting for good over evil.

Thanks so much to this brave woman, J. K. Rowling, who defied the odds and never left the world without the spark of magic.

As what Rowling once said, once when the books are finished, it's now time to believe in real magic that exists in our world. It only takes a generous effort so see clearly the sparks around us.

Copyright (c) 2007 Janz Datinguinoo

Subtitled AN IMAGINARY PORTRAIT OF DIANE ARBUS, we could say thank God for telling us on the first hand this is just imaginary and fabricated. Most biographies are not really a hundred-percent factual anyway, and in some ways just made up to fit the cinematic demands of the film. Take a bit of your life, put some drama, mystery, a little bit of crying and shouting and suicidal-tendency attitudes, it’s the perfect biography meant for the screen. Meanwhile, as FUR is embellished with hyperactive imagination, telling us what Diane Arbus’ life should have been, the result is as eccentric as its main character, engaging at certain points but fluttery and unstable in some.


For anyone who doesn’t know about Diane Arbus (pronounced as Dee-ann), she’s a famous American photographer of the 50s who revolutionised photography and influenced many due to her unusual empathy towards the marginalised people in the society i.e. transvestites, deformed individuals, dwarfism, and all that lot. In this film, Steven Shainberg has certainly put a different flavour to explain Arbus’ reason to her being, a complex story about love, sexual and artistic awakenings, and of course, fur and hair.


Diane Arbus (Nicole Kidman), an assistant (also a designer and make-up artist) to her husband, a famous mainstream photographer in New York, falls in love with a rather hairy neighbour upstairs (played by Robert Downey Jr.). She’s a wife who wanted to spread her wings and be freed from conventional entrapments of her life, which sees beauty behind even the ugliest things and has an obsession with imperfection. When she sees Lionel, her masked neighbour concealing a gargantuan amount of hair beneath, her life started to change. She starts picking up her old batty camera and begins into a journey of her artistic fiefdom.


What I like in this film is mainly the direction. The camera indeed shows us that there could be beauty even in the minutest things. Shainberg directs with grace, with careful camera movements, splashing his sets with intense colour and meanings. Like his last film, SECETARY, he focuses his head on character developments and gives importance to dialogues. The performances are astounding as well; Nicole Kidman is pitch-perfect as Diane, as one could feel her subtlety yet weird sadomasochistic resolve, her craving of changing her life and her intention towards her freakish photographs. Robert Downey Jr. is a tad disturbing as well, when he shows his most appreciable acting using his eyes (as he’s all covered in fur).


But FUR never soars. The problem relies heavily on its subject matter. With much reference to BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, ALICE IN THE WONDERLAND and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, the story is a bit lost in the wilderness, probably due to the whole fabrication thing and not really giving the message of why Arbus had essentially made her freakish photographs into magnificent wonders. Kidman may have conveyed Arbus’ inner weirdness, but there’s just so many hair in this film to tangle with. Even at the end of the film, it would make you feel left-out of what really Arbus intends us to understand. But this is a good film, it’s just understated.




RATING: B-

One of the major rules of the golden Hollywood filmmaking guidebook: CASABLANCA doesn’t need any remaking. It seemed as though Steven Soderbergh has failed to recognise this properly.


From plot, to dialogues, to cinematography of black-and-white monochromes, even to its movie poster, there are loads of similarity that even the most unsympathetic moviegoer could say that this looks reminiscent from the old time. However we do sympathise with Soderbergh for he wanted to revive the golden age of Hollywood where scripts turn into wondrous creations, but in his toil, the audience could feel a little deceived for what Soderbergh brings here is a shallow homage to the once fantastic era of moviemaking.


George Clooney stars as the main character, the American journalist Jake Geismer, who arrives in Germany to cover the Potsdam Conference with Truman, Churchill and other else, in an age of post-WWII in Berlin. However, the titular character THE GOOD GERMAN is not Clooney, of course he’s American. Geismer (Clooney) then meets Tully (a confused performance by Tobey Maguire), his driver who is also a military officer and also an illegal dealer, and also something that might make you become so confused in his nature of character. Tully is attached to Lena Brandt (this time, we’re thankful for Cate Blanchett’s excellent performance here) a prostitute, actually a widow of a former mathematician. But when Jake and Lena meet their eyes again, we, the audience know that they have a common past and they share an old love, which would revoke memories of CASABLANCA. As Jake sits down in the bar as he guzzles down liquor, reminiscing his past with Lena, it is inevitable to expect him to say “Of all the gin joints in the world, she strolls into mine.” Enough with CASABLANCA homage for Chrissake!


The plot is dull and how they developed it with conflicting loyalties with Jake not mesmerizingly trying to prove her connection with Lena, and Lena trying to hide a person who is actually THE GOOD GERMAN. Although we know that this good German had indeed done such a good thing, how they execute it is poorly done.


We revel, meanwhile, in the fact that Clooney and Blanchett knows how to fit their selves in the camera to look retro oldish style in the shades of black and white, but it’s Blanchett that shines here with her dramatic poses and her German-accented dialogues. Clooney is boring, unfortunately. But it’s Tobey Maguire who’s the greatest miscast in this film: his boyish nature doesn’t really reflect how sadistic his character is, thus resulting into a very unrealistic portrait of a conflicted sadist.


THE GOOD GERMAN may excel in cinematography as it effectively generates an old-school feel of the 40s and its soundtrack also reverberates well. It all looked like a vintage montage from an old television screen. But excelling in these departments doesn’t mean a movie does its job for a fair reason, because abominably speaking, it is tedious, unbalanced and indecisive in terms of storyline and characters. This movie is dull, and it is so annoying when everything refers to one of movie history’s greatest piece of cinema, CASABLANCA. Poorly done.




RATING: D

With the dark and brooding opening montage, it comes to full realisation that HARRY POTTER AND THE ORDER OF THE PHOENIX is going to be a shadowy event filled with menace and brimmed with urgency that conquers over flights, whims and fancies. This is no longer a child’s play as bright colours (except from the scary shades of pink) have already faded from the franchise, a legacy imprinted by Alfonso Cuaron’s brilliant PRISONER OF AZKABAN. As it is the shortest of the Potter movies, running for 2 hours and 18 minutes, it is brisk, fast-paced and compressed – however yet, it is convincing and incredibly compelling.


[Contains spoilers ahead, beware.]


In this fifth adventure, everything happens like a wildfire that doesn’t let you abandon your seat. The weather gets so gloomy all of a sudden after a summer drought in the Muggle suburban area of Surrey as Harry, sitting in a swing and being taunted by Dudley and his gang of his nightmarish visions at night, was being rapidly attacked by two rogue Dementors. Fending them off using Patronus Charm, this act led him to a near-expulsion from Hogwarts, which also led him to being saved by the Order of the Phoenix to its headquarters in Grimmauld’s Place, Sirius Black’s family house, and into a hearing in the Ministry of Magic. This was where Harry discovers that the world that he was about to face is full of indifference and ignorance from the truth that Lord Voldemort is indeed back in the flesh and gathering his army.


PHOENIX, with its complexity in plot and density of events, can be distilled in three major thematic elements: rebellion against anarchy, teenage angst or emotional politics, and well, politics itself.


So far in the Potter movies (and books), this is the political one. The Ministry of Magic, spearheaded by the impulsive Cornelius Fudge, is promoting a smear campaign to the magical world that He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named is not back, and that both Potter and Dumbledore are reduced to snivelling, media-savvy liars. “It is horrible how fear does to people” as what Remus Lupin says, that the Ministry is blinded by fear and that it denies the allegation of Voldemort’s rebirth. Paranoid, the Ministry installs an emissary in Hogwarts, its Undersecretary, the all-too-fluttery, amusingly cheery but frighteningly deadly Dolores Jane Umbridge, an evil horrid toad-like bitch clad in shades of pink, a girly smile and a high-pitched laughter (played by the top-notch, masterclass performance of Imelda Staunton) to spy over if Dumbledore is gathering an army himself to overthrow the Ministry. She’s a government official sent to teach in the Defense Against the Dark Arts course, obsessed with order and regulations, and rules over Hogwarts with a bureaucratic iron fist and almost fascistic pink cardigans.


Thus the use of practical magic is banned, which then leads to Harry forming a secret underground society to learn proper use of spells in defending their selves. Inspired by the Order of the Phoenix itself, their society is called Dumbledore’s Army, and seemed like a French Resistance against German occupation.


However, despite everything that’s been going around Harry, he feels detached as he battles conflicting emotions and loneliness in a world that rarely believes him. Even Ron and Hermione’s friendship feels like a course that he had to go through. Also Dumbledore keeps him in the dark about what’s really happening. He finds solace both in his godfather Sirius Black and with the newly introduced character of the eccentric but free-spirited Luna Lovegood, who seem to teach Harry some life lessons under her oddball personality and tuneful voice. She’s also a child of trauma, as Harry could relate to, and her amazing fearlessness of death is inspiring to him.


Harry admits he’s “angry all the time”, evoking a teenage plea from angst, and he also suffers personal nightmares as being controlled by Lord Voldemort. The possession scenes are quite good to watch, as flashbacks are rendered and we see for the first time Snape’s past as a tortured soul from the hands of Harry’s father himself, James Potter. This part of the plot becomes a very crucial one to whole story as it leads to a great deception in the film’s climax.


And of course, the film’s climax; it’s a breathless, thrilling excitement to witness impressive wand battles, flourish and waves of power and incredible action-packed magical battle. From the flying of Thestrals (dragon-ish black horse creatures that pulls the Hogwarts carriages only seen by people who have seen death) over London, to the sequence in the Halls of Prophecy with the crystal balls are such a memorable scenes, all carefully shot. Even Voldemort and Dumbledore’s showdown is worth your ticket (will make Yoda and Darth Vader’s battle look ancient).


For all Potterites, books are read and all could definitely notice the major condensation of its story to fit in a time limit. Michael Goldenberg (who had penned CONTACT and PETER PAN) had done such an incredible job in thinning an 870-page book into a meatier, leaner and tight script that keep things moving. All minor backdrops were shredded and it focused on the main essence of the book, sacrificing plots of minor relevance i.e. Quidditch, to give momentum to the urgency in the magical world.


The performances here are more grounded and more realised than its predecessors. Daniel Radcliffe, having starred in a coming-of-age film DECEMBER BOYS (to be released later this year) and having dropped his pants at West End stage-play EQUUS in an unbelievably gritty and remarkable performance, gives his best here as Harry. This is his most accomplished Potter performance in all films, delving deeper in Harry conflicts and giving an intense and profound resonance into the role. Same as Emma Watson as Hermione and Rupert Grint as Ron, who both grew into their roles that made them able to act comfortably in the screen. Newcomer Evanna Lynch shines as Luna Lovegood, showing substance beneath eccentricity. Matthew Lewis as Neville Longbottom and Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley do their fair share in their roles as well.


With PHOENIX impressive panoply of British actors, namely the always brilliant Michael Gambon as Dumbedore, Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort who always steals the scene he’s in and still gives me the creeps (reminding me how this man was born to play Amon Goeth in SCHINDLER’S LIST, now rocked the role of Lord Voldie), Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Jason Isaacs, David Thewlis, Brendan Gleeson, Emma Thompson, George Harris and Natalia Tena (who played the whimsical Nymphadora Tonks). Gary Oldman’s Sirius Black will become a memorable character to the franchise as he leaves a great imprint on this film; damn, how this actor turns any role into gold. Alan Rickman also is hissier than ever as Severus Snape and no matter how less his time appearance; he owns every single scene he’s in as well. But it’s the performances of these two astonishing actresses: Imelda Staunton, who deserve the plaudits for making the character of Umbridge such a classic role to watch, and Helena Bonham Carter for playing the mad-haired shrieking sadist of a witch (whom we will see more in Potter 6). But it’s Staunton who really gives the creeps, as she looks like she would readily stab anyone in the back with a gleeful smile. This is your nightmare of a teacher, sum up all your terror teachers in your past and multiply it by ten.


David Yates, a British TV series veteran and director of the heartfelt THE GIRL IN THE CAFE, also a political film, is a shrewd choice as the helmer of PHOENIX. He knows where to settle his story and focus to the heart of the tale. Slawomir Idziak, the cinematographer, chooses palettes of blue and grey tones to fully convey the darker world, and disguises greater menace in Umbridge’s pinkish demeanour. Nicholas Hooper creates a dramatic score as well, as takes from John Williams and gives his thumbmark on the music and stirring symphony.
In the movie mainstream today, the Potter saga is the only series that keeps getting better and better with every outing (take that you Spiders and Pirates out there!), not to mention, it’s still the fifth film and 10 days more we will know the final chapter of this young wizard’s fate in the eagerly, nail-bitingly anticipated DEATHLY HALLOWS, and 3 years more then we will be able to see its transformation into the screen in 2010. For the first time in this period of summer movies, here comes a film that felt like it has done its job (save TRANSFORMERS and DIE HARD 4.0; they’re both entertaining) and not just for the sake of blockbustering to cash in some gazillions of ka-ching. PHOENIX dares to be intelligent amid movies nowadays that dumb down the plot structure to appeal to the low-brained society. I wouldn’t ask for pardon for this is true. Part of a film’s good objective is to encourage people to be adept.


PHOENIX is a good example of these kinds of films. While it is not really better than Alfonso Cuaron’s artistic and liberating PRISONER OF AZKABAN and Mike Newell’s hormonal and sincere GOBLET OF FIRE, it sure is better than the Columbus-era of PHILOSOPHER’S STONE and CHAMBER OF SECRETS cinematically. This is a very intense film, with a solid script and defined acting performances. But amongst the battles and furore, amongst the wand waving of dark magic and white enchantments, PHOENIX most of all focuses on Harry’s inner war and the things that’s happening in his mind. His detached condition allows him to discover his weaknesses and finds strength in his own conflict. This is the most human Potter film so far, with poignant scenes tailored into it (the sacking of Trelawney is a touching human moment, the death of a major character and Harry’s struggle in the finale). Thankfully though, it’s not encrusted with over-sentimentality and it’s schmaltz-free, letting Harry face the death of his loved one in a fleeting mind-numbing scene filled with silence and echoes, also letting him realise that magic is not at all magical, it’s deadly and it could take away lives in an instant swish. For all of J. K. Rowling’s themes, it’s the message of love and friendship that gives PHOENIX a strong impression and is always worth waving our wands for.


“We have something that Voldemort doesn’t have,” Harry says at the end.


“What’s that?” Hermione asks.


“Something worth fighting for.”


At the last fading scene, we somehow realise that this is somehow like riding in an eventful train journey, many things rolling past by the window. The destination is still two movies away, but we’re getting there.


The last book of the series concludes Harry’s journey (Will J. K. Rowling conclude his life as well? I believe so. I predict so. What will defeat something fascist and horribly anarchist in this world without the only means of sacrifice?) It’s still 10 days away, but you’ve got to believe this PHOENIX is brilliant.



RATING: A

LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD, popularly known as DIE HARD 4.0, the fourth franchise of the new reincarnated saga of John McClane, is an effective action slam-bang thriller. It is both smart and dumb; lets you be intrigued with its premise and plot, but lets you forget your brain as well, with some bits of one-dimensionality, but mind you – it doesn’t let you entirely let go of your brain and instead encapsulates you into a wild joyride. Yippee-ki-yay! This DIE HARD 4.0 is a helluva fun to watch.


Common to summer films, expect explosions. Either helicopters are blowing up or cars smashing in screen as though it never knew budgeting and ka-pow of combat and bullets shooting past your ears, it’s stupid really to take things seriously this time. Summer films are known to be a tad daft but filled with guilty pleasure rollicking excitement and fun, and only a few really has the heart and brains to rise up to the great status. However, all Bruce Willis’ fourth outing has are balls. You’ve got to believe Willis is still the guy to save the day from brainy terrorists, just forget his age and his grey hairs (actually they’re not so visible because he’s bald). I have just recently watched TRANSFORMERS and I have realised that it was released at the same time in the US with DIE HARD 4.0, which makes it a very hectic July 4th Independence Day for everyone American. I’ve got to admit, I enjoyed TRANSFORMERS and all its metallic glory but DIE HARD 4.0 might prove to be a better tempestuous roar.


This has the potential to be a very dark thriller as the plot echoes the 9/11 crisis. Set in post 9/11, geeky but fashionable-looking cyber-terrorists control the whole land in a nationwide struggle in all aspects. All the alphabet people, the FBI, CIA, NSA and etc, were all in dilemma. The systems were hacked and bypassed, and every single hacker in the country was annihilated so that these cyber-terrorists could rule in their own throne. Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), a former government cyber-programmer, also a smartly-dressed computer geek, probably an impression that “geek is the new cool”, is on revenge and uses his structure to shut down every single system in the country and put everything on his command. He also uses his girlfriend, co-terrorist, Mai (Maggie Q), honestly the sexiest hacker in the world in my opinion, as his secret weapon. When his team try to eradicate the hackers in whole America by sending bomb viruses (I never thought viruses could explode like a tank bomb), police lieutenant/detective John McClane gets involved as he was ordered to get hold of one Matthew Farrell (Justin Long), the last American hacker alive.


McClane here is such a figure to be cynical about. He wears a rather leathery outfit and also very calm in handling circumstances. But it’s his wisecracking persona that hits the “ordinary guy” claim. He’s also a man trying to become a father to her unwilling daughter, Lucy (played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead). As the plot develops, and McClane ventures deeper into the conspiracy, he figures out that he’s about to face a more terrifying threat to the country. Smash more cars and blow up roads and say you’re into this commotion. Traffic lights are controlled resulting to street damages, power plants are jacked as well, total blackout ensue, and every single building is evacuated – it is indeed terrifying to see such vista of a country in the brink of a massive terrorism, far greater and far more threatening than what happened last 9/11. This is indeed possible, as new technology prove to be smarter and more intimidatory.


However, John McClane is a kind of guy who lived in the old rules and dumb as a nutcase when it comes to hacking so he uses Matthe Farrell as his sidekick. But then the battle becomes personal as his daughter was captured after McClane defeated Mai in a fascinating hand-to-hand combat, tooth, blood and nail. It’s amazing to see Bruce Willis and Maggie Q fight with each other, more so when you see Maggie like a ruthless cat and Bruce beats her up mercilessly as well.


It’s definitely enjoyable to see the scenes in which the conflict amounts up to total tension. There are great flaws in the film, especially in the don’t-forget-about-your-brain department, and the whole terrorism backstory was left unexplained (the only explanation was how Thomas Gabriel came to be as a terrorist). What’s good about DIE HARD 4.0 was that it brings back the old-school feel of action films. The big truck chase in the highway absolutely reminds me of the first TERMINATOR film. Oh, and the battle of the big truck and the aircraft in the highway is unforgettable.


Kudos to Len Wiseman, director from UNDERWORLD, for bringing a hard-edged actioner; his presence is a solid one as he definitely knows his camera angles, his action sequences, and his art of smashing cars (watch out when Bruce Willis and Justin Long ducking from a flying car, brilliant). Some supporting performances were overshadowed by Bruce Willis and the so-bad-that-it’s-so-good kind of villain played by Timothy Olyphant. DIE HARD 4.0 after all is an action film, shallow at points, characterisation swallowed by explosions; but it’s an entertaining action film, at that.




RATING: B+

Scarcely ever, we glorify in stage-to-screen adaptations from the likes of CHICAGO to the SOUND OF MUSIC and to the brilliantly moving BILLY ELLIOT. Yet they’re all musicals. All we ever wonder is how a non-musical play would suffer the grimy words of critics when it is brought to screen, whether it’s all talk-the-talk nonsense or an inspired material. THE HISTORY BOYS is a fantastic apparatus to study with, with our lenses zooming, eager to find whether there’s only shtick or some real substance. It tackles materials infinitely delicate even way back in the 80s and even today, and while it’s satisfactorily executed, the transformation from stage to screen seemed to need more of a bounce.


It’s not an all-too fantastic film but it exult fantastic performances all throughout. This group of eight students in an all-boys English public school strives to sit in properly in the Oxbridge exams, as they achieve their A-levels results. Out of the eight clever studs, Samuel Bennett as the clever but vulnerable and confused Posner, and the easy-going and opinionated Dakin played by Dominic Cooper, stands out clearly as good performances. The stage and movie veteran Richard Griffiths plays the sad-sack openly homosexual teacher, who gropes for students during his motorcycle rides, seemed a bit awkward to watch – but necessarily a performance to watch since good actors do have impact on their roles. But it’s Frances De La Tour’s Dorothy Lintott who excels as the feminist teacher and blames “history as a result of masculine ineptitude”, she’s just so excellent in this film. Stephen Campbell Moore also delivers well as the new teacher Irwin, who believes in the power of learning and that sitting in the Oxbridge exam is not just a responsibility but an inherent fact of life. The Headmaster, played Clive Merrison, was played out over-the-top that it’s hard to believe his persona.


THE HISTORY BOYS could sometimes be a difficult film to sit through. The main blame would have to be the material, as how it studies the 80s issues within the all-boys institution. It is a bit creepy indeed to realise when one is confined in an all-boys school since there’s not much space to interact with the opposite sex, just like what happened to some of these boys in the film: Posner suffers in his own confusion as he falls in love with Dakin, his own best friend. It is really scary, even teachers like Hector (Richard Griffiths) seemed to have been influenced by the environment. Yet however, it studies the differences of class, the indulgence of humour and the adolescent life.


Some were calling this “the English DEAD POETS SOCIETY”. Sorry but I don’t agree with this. It’s thematic, this film, as it brings the images of the 80s of the British society but merely reduces the whole plot into self-indulgence. It doesn’t necessarily echo the whole society in general. It is intelligent, witty and clever in its disposition, as these students debate about poetry and even the Holocaust, but it’s all wasted in an uncinematic delivery. Nicholas Hytner provides some effort but I think it’s the material that doesn’t serve its own purpose and rather became fleetingly forgettable.




RATING: B-

It’s difficult not to relate THE GOOD SHEPHERD with THE GODFATHER II, mainly because of Francis Ford Coppola and Robert De Niro’s involvement in it. While it’s De Niro’s deft skill behind the camera directing, and Coppola’s rare once-in-a-blue-moon production management, this film echoes that of the Sicilian mob story only put in the CIA territory. This tale of one man battling between responsibility and family, with secret societies, dark missions, strange killings, concealed investigations, estranged wives, and unconsummated lives, may numb your bum as you sit through a very complex yarn of a film – but it is slow as it is assured and as labyrinthine as it is crude.


This film of 2 hours and 48 minutes is indeed slow in its narrative voice, and takes a while to fully grip on us with intrigue. Whilst wondering the depth of the film, we could simplify THE GOOD SHEPHERD as the history of the Central Intelligence Agency and how it came about, and how the life of one man turned around so suddenly that it cost his whole life and his family’s as well. Edward Wilson (a captivating performance by Matt Damon whose steeliness and composed figure may define the caricature of anti-acting) was introduced to the world of secrets when he was still young, discovering his father’s death in his study, and then joined Yale University’s famous but veiled Skull and Bones Club where the initiation takes place in mud-wrestling, reminds me of Kubrick’s disturbing EYES WIDE SHUT but without the sex orgy. Until he grows up into a fully composed gentleman but also a secret spy, being asked to spy on a teacher, he sharpens his skills on eavesdropping. This is not James Bond or Jason Bourne, not at all too flashy in demeanours, but with cinematography that blends chromatic colours and low lightings. However, Edward falls in love a deaf girl but concedes to responsibility when he impregnates the daughter of a senator, Clover (played by Angelina Jolie). The wife must pay the price for Edward’s job as he goes out to other countries for missions, leaving the wife and the son alone throughout the years. Like THE GODFATHER II, the child pays the price of the father’s decisions.


It is actually a good film, but just heavy-lidded to watch. Robert De Niro understand the whole complexity of this tale that he doesn’t want everything to be like a thriller, but consistently paves the way to drama and like a one-man stand on a very fractious world. Sometimes it could feel so long, convoluted and just filled with scenes that oftentimes feel as though disjointed – but what mainly stays after watching the film was its message and its haunting resonance to Coppola’s triumph that was THE GODFATHER II.


Matt Damon is superb, and Angelina Jolie gives a good try as the vulnerable Clover. She’s one of those wives who wanted to understand their husbands but as filled with secrecy and absence in the household, they commit to paranoia and start bitching around and cry their selves’ river upon river. There are also some good supporting performances here, especially by that of Billy Crudup’s British aristocrat and that of Michael Gambon’s professor.


There is violence and surmounting intrigue in this film but nevertheless will bore many and might inspire some. There is a sign of intricate filmmaking in De Niro’s hands as he proves capable of doing the art of direction. Coppola’s production is lavish and elite-looking (you could feel as you see the scenes unfolding). But with all its mastery and complexity, THE GOOD SHEPHERD excels as a character study but not an over-all triumph of a film that could break the Hollywood ice today. Oh, you can learn some tidbits about CIA as well.




RATING: B+

Let’s get over and done this with: of all the movie genres, romantic comedies are the most boring to review. Gazillions of cheesy plot-predictability had flooded the screens since J-Lo decided to be the Queen of Sheba of Hollywood mushiness (and Lindsay Lohan claiming to be the princess on her own throne). However, of course, there are some who would try to break the ice and bring something relevantly new and fresh to the course of genre tastelessness.


Thanks to WEDDING CRASHERS, we could still hope the romantic comedies can still be comedic. This laugh-out bummer is hilarious in a way it’s never taken too seriously, with a material that’s just ridiculous to a point it’s considered a summer popcorn flick. Did I mention it’s ridiculous? Yep, it’s more than that – it’s a raunchy, buckwild treat to those who find awkward moments could actually be a source of hilarity. Enter to adult comedy territory where dialogues fire with expletives, straightforward innuendos, and situations filled with over-the-top schmoozing and uproarious gigs.


Life’s a party, so best friends (also divorce mediators) John Beckwith (Owen Wilson) and Jeremy Grey (Vince Vaughn) crash weddings ruthlessly, no matter what ethnicity of weddings. May it be Jews, Catholics, Muslims or Indians, they don’t choose, they only crash with one specific objective: to take advantage of women inspired by the thought of love and marriage. Of course, it’s just a one-night stand, that’s all. The opening montage of Wilson and Vaughn having a great stint in parties and becoming great hits was delightfully funny.


There are rules to learn, but all of this were about to bend when they crash a major wedding event of Washington D.C., John falls in love-at-first-sight with Treasury Secretary William Cleary ‘s (Christopher Walken) daughter, Claire (the gorgeous Rachel McAdams). As the two try to infiltrate the household of the Cleary, hilarity ensues, F-bombs explodes, and all that drama, comedy and fun blended together to make a feel-good film for the open minded ones.


The characters were made as though good-minded writers decided to become liberal all of a sudden. Vince Vaugh is so frolicsome that all of his words and lines spoken make you really laugh in front of his amusing face. Owen Wilson blends comedy and seriousness with his love for Claire. Isla Fischer as the horny virgin sister of Claire, the wild, relentless Gloria steals every scene she’s in. All boyfriends in the world would unabashedly wish that all the girlfriends would be like her.


While there are some things that didn’t work for me i.e. the unnecessary gay-weirdo brother and Claire fiancé who’s just so one-dimensional and basically just an arsehole, plus Will Ferrell’s cameo appearance (doesn’t really do great to the film, except for the funeral crashing part), it’s an over-all entertainment fuelled with one-liners that rapid-fires like arrows. “Make me a bicycle, clown!” Pardon this for being predictable, all romantic comedies suffer from this disease.



RATING: B+