JUMPER [2008]

Cast: Hayden Christensen, Rachel Bilson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jamie Bell

Director: Doug Liman

Screenplay: David Goyer

Running time: 1 hr 28 mins

Genre: Sci-Fi/Action/ Adaptation


CRITIQUE:


The art of teleportation has never been captured before in cinematic history, or if it has been captured already then that’s beyond my film knowledge. So for a start, JUMPER leaps in the originality category. It’s a thrilling concept: rare human beings in our world who have the ability to “jump” across time and space, gifted individuals who could slip through places like wandering ghosts. The ones chasing them are called Paladins, ancient religious fanatics who advocate that God is the only one who could be at all places at all time. Unfortunately, this is the deepest you could get to the story. If you’re looking for something with depth, then this is not the place. Might as well jump to another sci-fi flick with intelligence, because apparently the makers of this film seemed to have not have realise that even science fiction should make sense too. What we get from JUMPER is a dazzling rush of experience that sometimes blinds from the stare-or-you’ll-miss-it mad adrenaline onslaught – then we’re left at the surface dizzy, not able to penetrate deeper into the very shallow epicentre of the film.


It starts with a good premise, like every superhero film begins. We meet David (Hayden Christensen) in his local secondary school sporting a fancy spot on this girl (yes, just like every superhero movie seem to begin with), and soon discovers his teleportation ability as he escapes the frozen river and suddenly appears on the public library soaking wet. Minutes into the film, all you see are plotholes, so big and obvious like black holes that make you wonder why the hell they exist and why did the screenwriters seem to have not noticed, or perhaps ignored in sacrifice for bigger jam-packed action-adventure bravura. David’s family background served as a mystery so impenetrable, that the plotline about his estranged mother (Diane Lane, in a criminally underused character) was sacrificed to appear at the end of the film, only to convolute things much further. Also, the Paladins attachment to the NSA is a gigantic eyebrow-raising conundrum that they seem to play like Gods themselves, tracing everyone in the world, even if they have no identities, such as David whose existence is just between his apartment, the bank vault, and the many touristy spots in the world. Even the exotic locations seem to cheat the audience from their viewing pleasure. It’s not that they’re not magnificent to behold, but these spots felt like they were just used for Hayden Christensen to appear in them and pose his boyish charms, may it be posing under an umbrella atop Big Ben in rainy London, or having a cosy tea atop the Pyramids of Egypt.


If you’re expecting for well-drawn characters, sadly again, JUMPER is not the perfect place to be. Hayden Christensen, after his STAR WARS regime and training, despite all of his efforts, still looked wooden in the acting department and could never quite pull off a transparent, three-dimensional character with at least believability of his existence. The character of David needs more gravitas, but then again, sadly the script by David Goyer doesn’t allow the characters to find profundity. Rachel Bilson is still in her OC-esque, and underplays as one of the daftest leading ladies on screen, who always follow David around and never demands a burning answer. Samuel L. Jackson’s Roland is the chief Paladin, and even him, his origins cannot be traced anywhere around the plot. Thus leads us to Jamie Bell as the loose-canon of a Jumper, Griffin. Thank God for the casting director to involve Jamie Bell in this almost catastrophic project. Billy Elliot no more, he still injects a much needed wit, boisterousness and magnetism, which are facetiously absent from JUMPER.


Doug Liman, after his THE BOURNE IDENTITY and the rather spectacular and winning MR & MRS SMITH directing duties, may find that JUMPER would be the one that will mess up his directing curriculum vitae. He sure knows how to handle spectacular scenes, especially the breathless chase of David and Griffin for the explosive detonator, cutting from the streets of Tokyo, to the ice of the Arctic, to the warzones of Afghanistan – it’s amazing for a scene to relentlessly grip us to our limits. The scenes of teleportation were almost flawlessly executed. Then again, that doesn’t mean the movie is.


THE FINAL WORD:


The spectacular chase scenes are worth checking out for, but they cannot compensate the film’s lack of logical respect or swathe the evident plotholes. JUMPER needs a good dose of coherence, cruise control, and better scriptwriter. It leaves us breathless, but its storyline gives no scintilla of depth and it doesn’t leap – instead it falls.


RATING: C+

comments (0)

LA VIE EN ROSE [2007]

Cast: Marion Cotillard, Gerard Depardieu

Director: Oliver Dahan

Screenplay: Oliver Dahan

Running time: 2 hrs 12 mins

Genre: Biopic/Drama/Foreign


REVIEW:


Because biopics are told in a traditional, chronological manner, from bleak days of childhood, to rising superstardom, then to hellish drug abuse, and to the triumphant ascent into messianic status – it’s time for a rejig. Todd Haynes has done it with his Bob Dylan biopic I’M NOT THERE, and now the biopic of the legendary French musical artist Edith Piaf LA VIE EN ROSE inclines to do the same, but without the six persona formula, which Haynes brilliantly executed to nail Dylan’s erratic character. Oliver Dahan seemed to throw the whole biopic guidebook out of the window and screw the whole straightforward manner. In result, LA VIE EN ROSE, while maintaining a whole one-woman show, combines the complex portrait of this French chanteuse with a kind of storytelling that goes backwards and forwards. Not that it causes some levels of annoyance, but it certainly forms a tousled look and feel of the film, a piece of celluloid that hardly settles of subtlety.


Nevertheless, it’s an impressive portrait of the chanteuse Edith Piaf. In the story, we embark on Piaf’s ragged upbringing after being abandoned by her mother at Southern France, and being whisked away by her father to be brought up in a brothel, and leading her life into the carnival as well. These odd environments shaped a distinctly tough woman, and soon sing in the streets of Paris for a penny. There she was discovered, and hence her rise to fame became inevitable as she was hailed “the soul of Paris”. Most of all, she learns about love, heartbreak and tragedy. One brilliantly handled scene was her discovery of the death of her lover in her bedroom, a grief-ridden scene of such emotional ferocity that haunted Piaf’s life for eternal damnation.


Despite of the jaggedness of the film, the whole sprawling scope of tragedy, melodrama and soap-operatic grittiness mounts heavily on Marion Cotillard’s shoulders, as she delivers a gloriously extraordinary Oscar-worthy performance as Edith Piaf. Her hauntingly accurate portrayal of this flighty songbird is an impressive feat, probably one of the most fascinating, mostly deservingly rewarding performances by an actress ever captured in celluloid history. It’s an unflinching, uncompromising performance by Cotillard, and she definitely deserved her recent Oscar Best Actress statue. Take that, Julie Christie! It doesn’t only take a woman trying to look confused and mental to deserve an Oscar, whereas Cotillard gets into the verve and vitality of Piaf, singing so passionately to the core. It’s so remarkable to see a young, mostly unknown actress from France, playing an old woman trying to be young, as the film journeys to and fro, with leaps from childhood to desperate adulthood, when Piaf suffers from sickness.


THE FINAL WORD:


Somehow one could wish the director should have told this story in a more straightforward way. LA VIE EN ROSE is not your most compelling biopic ever shot, but undisputedly offers an astounding, dazzlingly enthralling central performance by Marion Cotillard. After all, this is her show and it’s the most chameleonic portrayal by an actress you’ll ever see in years since Nicole Kidman’s Virginia Woolf in THE HOURS.


RATING: B+

comments (0)

THE OSCAR WINNERS! [All Hail the Coens and the Darkside!]

Finally, the dread has backed down, the gloom has cleared up, the sky has turned blue again, the birds are chirping, the clouds... OK, let's not go that way. OSCARS winners is in! I missed the whole show, which I've read and heard was a good one (of course, when you put somebody like John Stewart, it'll be a hell of a funny show).


NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN ruled the night, bagging 4 awards including the major cajones of Best Director for the Coens and Best Picture. And the dark characters of Daniel Day-Lewis got the Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor to Javier Bardem and his horrible haircut. I am very pleased as well the lovely and deserving Marion Cotillard bagged Best Actress for her tour-de-force performance as chanteuse Edith Piaf in LA VIE EN ROSE (Cate Blanchett, looking so surprised and so happy when Cotillard's name was announced, aww bless her). So far, so good, my bets have all won, and I still have to watch MICHAEL CLAYTON to see Tilda Swinton's supposed-to-be corporate bitchy character as she won the BEST SUPPORTING NOD. I'm so happy for ONCE as well for winning the Best Original Song!!!


Probably the best speeches goes to Tilda Swinton. Damn that woman! She can make a concise, funny, shamelessly direct, and intelligent speech in a matter of seconds! She first looked surprised and astonished, but then started talking about how the Oscar statue "and bottocks looked like the spitting image" of her American agent, and George Clooney's "Batsuit, you know, with those nipples". What a woman. Marion Cotillard's speech was truly heartfelt and tender and she was definitely moved and stunned by her win, as she said "Thank you, life. Thank you, love. It is true that there are angels in this city". But who could ever forget John Stewart's gimmick as nominating the pregnant women of the night, with Jessica Alba, Cate Blanchett and Nicole Kidman as nominees and hollered "the baby goes to.." It was Angelina Jolie who won, and apparently, Stewart tells the audience "she can't be here because it's hard to hire 17 babysitters at an Oscar night". Classic.


Here's the result. Winners are painting the town red:


BEST PICTURE
ATONEMENT
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
MICHAEL CLAYTON
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
JUNO


BEST ACTOR
Johnny Depp - SWEENEY TODD
Tommy Lee Jones - IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
Daniel Day Lewis - THERE WILL BE BLOOD
George Clooney - MICHAEL CLAYTON
Viggo Mortensen - EASTERN PROMISES


BEST ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett - ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE
Laura Linney - THE SAVAGES
Marion Cotillard - LA VIE EN ROSE
Ellen Page - JUNO
Julie Christie - AWAY FROM HER


BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Javier Bardem - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Tom Wilkinson - MICHAEL CLAYTON
Hal Holbrook - INTO THE WILD
Casey Affleck - THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES
Philip Seymour Hoffman - CHARLIE WILSON'S WAR


BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Ryan - GONE BABY GONE
Cate Blanchett - I'M NOT THERE
Ruby Dee - AMERICAN GANGSTER
Saoirse Ronan - ATONEMENT
Tilda Swinton - MICHAEL CLAYTON


BEST ANIMATED FILM
PERSEPOLIS
RATATOUILLE
SURF'S UP


BEST DIRECTOR
Joel and Ethan Coen - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Tony Gilroy - MICHAEL CLAYTON
Jason Reitman - JUNO
Paul Thomas Anderson - THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Julian Schnabel - THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY


BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Joel and Ethan Coen - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Sarah Polley - AWAY FROM HER
Christopher Hampton - ATONEMENT
Ronald Harwood - THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY
Paul Thomas Anderson - THERE WILL BE BLOOD


BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Diablo Cody - JUNO
Nancy Oliver - LARS AND THE REAL GIRL
Tony Gilroy - MICHAEL CLAYTON
Brad Bird - RATATOUILLE
Tamara Jenkins - THE SAVAGES


BEST ART DIRECTION
AMERICAN GANGSTER
ATONEMENT
THE GOLDEN COMPASS
SWEENEY TODD
THERE WILL BE BLOOD


BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Roger Deakins - THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES
Seamus McGarvey - ATONEMENT
Janusz Kaminski - THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY
Roger Deakins - NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Robert Elswit - THERE WILL BE BLOOD


BEST COSTUME DESIGN
ACROSS THE UNIVERSE
ATONEMENT
ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE
LA VIE EN ROSE
SWEENEY TODD


BEST EDITING
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY
INTO THE WILD
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
THERE WILL BE BLOOD


BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
"Beaufort"
"The Counterfeiters"
"Katyn"
"Mongol"
"12"


BEST MAKEUP
NORBIT
LA VIE EN ROSE
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END


BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
ATONEMENT
THE KITE RUNNER
MICHAEL CLAYTON
RATATOUILLE
3:10 TO YUMA


BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Falling Slowly" - ONCE
"Happy Working Song" - ENCHANTED
"So Close" - ENCHANTED
"That's How You Know" - ENCHANTED
"Raise It Up" - AUGUST RUSH


BEST SOUND EDITING
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
RATATOUILLE
THERE WILL BE BLOOD
TRANSFORMERS


BEST SOUND MIXING
THE BOURNE ULTIMATUM
NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
RATATOUILLE
3:10 TO YUMA
TRANSFORMERS


BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
THE GOLDEN COMPASS
PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END
TRANSFORMERS


BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
NO END IN SIGHT
OPERATION HOMECOMING: WRITING THE WARTIME EXPERIENCE
SICKO
TAXI TO THE DARK SIDE
WAR/DANCE


BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
"Freeheld"
"La Corona"
"Salim Baba"
"Sari's Mother"


BEST ANIMATED SHORT
"I Met The Walrus"
"Madame Tutli-Putli"
"Meme Les Pigeons Vont au Paradis"
"My Love"
"Peter and The Wolf"


BEST LIVE-ACTION SHORT
"At Night"
"Ill Supplente"
"Le Mozart des Pickpockets"
"Tanghi Argentini"
"The Tonto Woman"



Till next year, lads and gals.

comments (0)

THERE WILL BE BLOOD [2007]

Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson

Screenplay: Paul Thomas Anderson

Running time: 2 hrs 38 mins

Genre: Drama/Western


CRITIQUE:


In the beginning of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, there is a wordless silence that lingers like an elegiac atmosphere. For the first fifteen minutes, no dialogue was spoken. All we could see is the dark pit where the protagonist Daniel Plainview digs for nuggets of silver, breaking his leg, and then hauls himself up to the ground as the film’s music, an increasing snarl of horns and electric guitar, starts to slit through the quiet and barren desert landscape. Then it cuts, rather annoyingly, to another time setting, showing Plainview with a son named H. W., convincing a local town in Southern California to support his oil mining endeavour. Then throughout the film, it moves with a slow pace, almost dragging us into the hot, dry vista and into the inky and black catastrophe, and at the end of the film – bitch-slapping the audience with a climax that appears almost as lampoonery, totally at odds with everything the film has tried to build up throughout its very long running-time. In short, it had us transfixed at the very beginning and two-and-a-half hours later, it had us raising eyebrows and screaming “Draaaiiinaage!”. Yes, it’s that kind of film. If you’d think NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN had already caused your befuddlement, then you haven’t seen THERE WILL BE BLOOD’s ending yet.


Yet, strangely, days later after watching it, it grows on you, and THERE WILL BE BLOOD’s main ethos has finally sunk rock bottom. It is by no means a catastrophic film. In fact, it’s a superb character study into the deepest psyches of humanity and showing us the protagonist, Daniel Plainview, the rags-to-riches archetype, turning into the antagonist of the film itself, a catastrophic, sadly tragic character blinded by ambition, power, money and greed. He’s not the devilish type, but rather the prototype of a family man; humble, convincing and self-assured with a voice that’s spoken almost tranquilly, every word carefully enunciated, deep, seductive and commanding. But then we soon realise that he uses his son as a prop, to make the town people believe he’s that family man, yet all he wanted was their oil. The film also examines his relationship with his son, H.W., an unspoken voice of a child, who becomes deaf by an explosion of an oil rig and was abandoned by his own father. There is one haunting scene where the father reunites with his son in the middle of a desert, yet the father was met with the child’s rough punch across the face. There is also the examination of the relationship of brothers, as one man claims to be Plainview’s long lost brother, only to turn out into a bloody result.


But at the very core of the film is the battle of two titanic egos: Plainview, who represents Capitalism, and the character of Eli Sunday, who represents Catholicism. And when Capitalism and Catholicism collide, the result is disastrous, as what we’ve seen in the world already. Eli Sunday forces faith out of Plainview, and Plainview forces passivity from Sunday to the burgeoning rise of the monster that is industry. So when ambition meets faith, then “THERE WILL BE BLOOD” – as the title suggests, perhaps the most ominously titled film of 2007.


The problem with this piece of cinema is that it’s such a filmmaker’s film that it needs patience and perseverance on watching it. The masses will surely be dumbstruck out of their wits by this film’s longevity that one might probably ask another whether the film will finish in the next day or so. It’s n wonder why critics have been celebrating for this summit piece of cinema for its burning, very disturbing character study. Then again, it also takes time for the message to sink in, the transformation of a poor silver miner to an oil mogul-cum-entrepreneur, whose ambition and greed has entirely consumed his own existence. Now, not every single person in the world would have that understood as soon as the credits roll, even the metaphor of the milkshake-dialogue wouldn’t probably be completely deciphered by local movie watchers.


Nevertheless, the above grumbles don’t discourage the maverick director Paul Thomas Anderson in his visionary direction. THERE WILL BE BLOOD may be his best film he ever crafted, knowing that he rarely make films (only once in every four years); an intricate piece of story combined with sprawling Western cinematography (one favourite scene was the burning of oil rig like a wild red geyser amid the starchy desert landscape). He knows not to hurry and carefully builds his scene by scene, each shot a calculation, each move a decision.


And of course, it all leads to Daniel Day-Lewis and his masterclass performance, without a doubt, 2007’s most nuanced, precise and pitch-perfect acting calibre by an actor. If Oscars wouldn’t bestow him the honour, then Oscars is gormless about real screen performances. It is Day-Lewis gravitas that serves a magnet to this film, and his astounding presence that keeps us holding on to the otherwise slow-running time. It is Day-Lewis and his caricature of Plainview as the prophetic emblem of America, that’s as frightening as what America has turned into nowadays, the cause of havoc for an oil-based dilemma.


THE FINAL WORD:


The pace is frustrating, the plot build-up is teeth-grinding, and it’s so slow that you wonder when it will ever finish, hence minus a star for its longeur – but otherwise, a stellar, complex, brilliantly studied character film with a metaphoric significance. THERE WILL BE BLOOD may enfeeble your bum, but Anderson’s superb direction haunts and Day-Lewis’s performance stuns.


RATING: A-

comments (0)

ANGELINA JOLIE AND THE DEATHLY SNUBS [The Unholy Seven Grumbles on Oscars Nominations]

Alright. Just before Oscars started handing out those nude golden man-trophies “like free iPods” to winners this Sunday night, 23 February, here’s The Moviejerk with some rants and protest on the Academy’s sense of choice over its nominations. Hell no, this is not writer’s strike again. But since, the writer’s strike is officially over and Oscars ceremony is finally happening, surely before the red carpet rolls out, before the gown-bitchery and who-wears-what hoopla begins and the fabulously teary-eyed acceptance speeches inundate the stage (as though holding out the golden trophy is a catalyst of an emotional-breakdown syndrome) – Oscars can’t get away with moans. Whilst I’m only nobody, that doesn’t make me bereft of my own opinions, and it’s a fact that the Academy can go wrong sometimes (they’re just a bunch of humans, for God’s sake). Here’s your serviceable The Moviejerk with his whinge (shout and protest!).



Complaint Number One: WHERE THE BLOODY HELL IS ANGELINA JOLIE IN THE BEST ACTRESS LIST?!


She may be the world’s most paparazzi-d woman, the most globe-trotting actress, turning up from Cambodia to Ethiopia to Iraq (I wouldn’t be surprised if she turns up next in Afghanistan), the sexiest woman in the planet with the sexiest man as her hubby on her side – but that doesn’t mean she has already everything that she’d be snubbed for her much-deserved performance in A MIGHTY HEART. By the time the nomination was released to public, I’ve reacted with a manner so unimaginable that you’ve probably haven’t heard so much expletives being fired like raging bullets in your life. Well, that’s actually an exaggeration, but, what the £%^&*!!


Oy, you Academy voters! Listen. Ignoring Jolie for her terrific performance as Marianne Pearl is a riotous criminal act. Without a doubt, one of this year’s best performances by an actress, Jolie showed the world that she’s not only a goddess of epic proportions but indeed a true actress, not taking advantage of her persona. In A MIGHTY HEART, all you see is the character of Marianne Pearl, her courage under fire, her feistiness and her crumbling pathos in the heart of a gathering storm of terrorism – there’s no tabloid plethora of Jolie, stripped away from her uber-hotness, and she vanished into the role seamlessly. I thought the Academy voters are expert enough to recognise it. Whilst I’m no expert, it’s certainly apparent that even a person of no film knowledge could tell that a performance deserves an award or not.




In the Best Actress list, with the exception of Laura Linney in THE SAVAGES as I haven’t seen it yet, it’s Cate Blanchett’s performance as Queen Elizabeth I in ELIZABETH: THE GOLDEN AGE that’s an unnecessary addition. Blanchett’s act is as mighty as a storming wind, but compared to Jolie’s, the latter actress is more nuanced and grippingly realised than the ageing queen buried in frocks and big costumes. Julie Christie, meanwhile, in her mentally-challenged role in AWAY FROM HER is a quiet performance. In fact, it’s too quiet sometimes that you think if Christie is performing. She might be an effortless majesty of an actress, but playing her role as an Alzheimer’s patient only requires her to throw longing looks over the window and to the wintry landscapes, and even just look confused and befuddled, shed a tear or two, and act deranged and forgetful. Marion Cotillard is an unstoppable force in her Edith Piaf role in LA VIE EN ROSE and she truly deserved a nomination, or even a win, I wouldn’t be surprised. Ellen Page, the wisecracking smart-mouthed teenager, is a surprising nom but nonetheless, a deserving one that. But snubbing Jolie from even a nomination? Bloody bastards.



Complaint Number Two: WHY IS IT PENGUINS ALL THE TIME? WHAT ABOUT BEOWULF?


Looking back at Oscars past three-year run, it feel in love with the brilliant documentary MARCH OF THE PENGUINS, feeling cuddly over HAPPY FEET, and now SURF’S UP? What’s with the Academy why it is so penguin friendly? Alright, they’re cute creatures in this rotten Earth, but oh please, enough with it. If the basis of nomination comes with an “awwww” factor, then I’m afraid the Academy is turning into a melodramatic pun. So when Academy ignores the unlikely hero that is BEOWULF, it’s injustice in the making. For one, translating and revamping literature’s oldest English poem (the very first to have existed in literature memory) into something cinematic and vividly comprehensible, nevertheless entertaining, is a feat to behold. Another thing, the motion-capture technology that Robert Zemeckis used is a benchmark in animated history, albeit his zombie-fied THE POLAR EXPRESS. RATATOUILLE mostly deserves the plaudits for this year’s Best Animated Feature, but shutting out BEOWULF from a nomination – if Beowulf could have existed, he could have committed breaking-and-entering and slash your throats out.



Complaint Number Three: JOE WRIGHT, WHERE ART THOU?


I certainly don’t want to be called a moron, but perhaps only this time I don’t believe in the parlance “Do not do unto others what you don’t want others to do unto you”. Sorry, but if others are too moronic in their choices, then I don’t care about what these others might do unto me. This is the scene: if you nominate and hail a film for BEST PICTURE (such as ATONEMENT), wouldn’t it be more pragmatic to distinguish and recognise the one behind its existence? Joe Wright made ATONEMENT. Although Ian McEwan’s source novel serves as the heart and spirit of the film, it was Joe Wright’s magnificent vision, craft, skill and intelligence that superbly captured every frame to impeccable perfection. So why bloody ignore the much needed Best Director nomination? That remarkable 5-minute long-tracking scene in Dunkirk beach is not only ATONEMENT’s ace but it’s a groundbreaking paragon of exemplary filmmaking. Sure, the Academy nominated it for Best Cinematography. But without the director’s input, it wouldn’t be all realised. Joe Wright, you’re still the man. Prove these dunderheads next time around with a mouth-hanging 20-minute tracking shot of Keira Knightley running around in the middle of a warzone. Not possible but, if you see what I mean, just prove ‘em wrong!



Complaint Number Four: JUNO, I DON’T THINK SO...


LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE did it last year, and it seems JUNO seemed to be following footsteps and becoming that small-indie-that-could-be. I liked JUNO, alright; it’s a quirky film thankfully with depth and meaning, rooted by indelible performances by Ellen Page and Jennifer Garner. But why is everyone making a big deal out of it? A story of a pregnant teen forced to give out her baby and declared a comedy isn’t so much of a satisfying decision. If it was a comedy, than I should have laughed at it harder than I did in KNOCKED UP (another criminally underrated unwanted-pregnancy film!). JUNO leaves a sweet impression after the credits roll out, but it’s absolutely not weighty enough to be an Oscar winner for Best Picture. It needs more gravity to hold itself down to the ground of gold. I just don’t get why Academy falls for the joke of calling people “Soupy Sales”, like what? Phuket, Thailand!



Complaint Number Five: FOR SURE, ACROSS THE UNIVERSE IS ARTISTIC ENOUGH!


Why, why, why ACROSS THE UNIVERSE is not present in the Best Achievement in Art Direction category is something the Academy should answer. It’s not only one of the most artistic musicals ever put to screen, but it’s also a reflection of the musical history’s most artistic band, The Beatles, and the film even laid tribute to Warholian psychedelic artwork that revolutionised the pop-art of the world. So why shut it out from the category? From the newspaper pages flipping as ocean waves roll, to the strawberries dropping like bombs, to the bizarre oddity of Mr Kite and his blue men, to the psychedelic magical-mystery burst of rainbow colours with Doctor Roberts, and the finale’s retro blast, this film is embroidered with so much creative craft that could radicalise the format of conformist filmmaking. It’s brazen and bold. However, Academy – you wimps.



Complaint Number Six: WHO THE HELL NOMINATES NORBIT FOR AN OSCAR?


We know Eddie Murphy transformed himself in the movie and looked like a giant of a woman, and the effect was ridiculously head-smacking. Effective though, but otherwise a horrible, horrible film, that NORBIT. Another fact as well, Oscars is the quintessence for elite and noteworthy abode of films and has a reputation of choosing only the best. But choosing NORBIT, that bad film? I was just thinking that Oscars might have taken a strong hold over its reputation, but certainly fails by choosing NORBIT. Oh my God, I can’t believe it, NORBIT... NORBIT... so disturbingly bad.




Complaint Number Seven: SUNSHINE, NOT VISUALLY STUNNING ENOUGH?


It’s not only compared to 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY but SUNSHINE is one of those films that nearly, just nearly, achieves that 2001 status, mainly because of that amazing, gobsmacking visual effects of the dying sun and those thrilling, slap-your-wits-out space sequences. Danny Boyle, if I were you, unleash your demon right now for the Oscars has completely snubbed that praiseworthy effort. We know TRANSFORMERS deserved the win for Best Visual Effects, but at least a nomination for a humble respect. And they call themselves pundits. Yeah, right.




So those were my seven surreptitious seething. The Academy may not hear it, but the only thing I’m fretting at is that they might do something stupid again (something makes me recall what they have done when Oscars gave out the prize to CRASH – resulting in the biggest upset in Oscar history, which rightfully belongs to BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN), and something comatosely aggravating (SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, anyone remember?). Oh well. Academy, humour me.






2008 (c) J. S. Datinguinoo

London, England

comments (0)

Album Review: STARTED A FIRE by ONE NIGHT ONLY [2008]

Think about the rock oomph of RAZORLIGHT, with a hint of pianistic (if there ever is a word) KEANE, and a dash of epic strings by THE KILLERS - the result is surprisingly hailed from North Yorkshire, England in the form of 5-peopled band named ONE NIGHT ONLY. Their debut album STARTED A FIRE is a promising rise. Fans of indie pop-rock will have this band playing on their playlists from now on, as indie is written all over it.


All the songs are grounded with simplistic lyrics. What ONE NIGHT ONLY aims for is the pulling off an almost epic guitar-and-piano anthems that focuses on structured moods. It's an astonishing first act, nonetheless. From the sweepingly exultant and hopeful "Just For Tonight" (probably the best track of the lot), to the thump-your-feet abandon of "You and Me", to the reverie of "It's About Time", and the fascinating melody of "It's Alright". While the rest seem to be album fillers, they're not a bunch of bad songs. And what really leaves an impression is George Craig's quintessentially British vocals - deep and reassuring.


For a fledgling band, they don't sound bad at all. In fact, ONE NIGHT ONLY is surely a promising Brit talent.


RATING: B+

comments (0)

'YOU AND ME" by ONE NIGHT ONLY [Music Video]

ONE NIGHT ONLY's debut single, and the third track of their debut album STARTED A FIRE, only consists of four stanzas including the chorus. Nothing poetic, and rather, its coda is simple and direct. It's a unpretentious ode to the equality between two people over one thing: love.

An inferior song to JUST FOR TONIGHT, but definitely very catchy, with impressive piano tunes, and a beat to thump to. The video, nonetheless, is superior to JUST FOR TONIGHT, stunned with monochromatic black-and-white visage of British teenage careless rock-the-house attitude.

RATING: B+

comments (0)

"JUST FOR TONIGHT" by ONE NIGHT ONLY [Music Video]

ONE NIGHT ONLY is such a promising new indie Brit act. Hailed from Helmsley, Yorkshire, this independent talent proves to be a promising band.

This is their second debut single from their brilliant debut album STARTED A FIRE (2008). Written in simple lyrics, sweeping guitar-and-piano anthem, this is pop-rock escapism nailed by George Craig's quintessentially British vocals.

Promising. "Sing like you want this."

Rating: A

comments (0)

THE MOVIEJERK AWARDS 2007 OFFICIAL POSTER!




Screw Oscars. [Snubbing Angelina Jolie from a most needed nomination for her performance in A MIGHTY HEART is a crime, you Academy voters!!] The Moviejerk is the real deal, an award-giving body that's formed by, well, one body (lol), and bestows awards to only the best and to those who truly deserves it (only that there's no golden statues given). This is the 3rd Annual Moviejerk Awards this 2007, declared on March 2008, just a week after Oscars. So watch out SOON for the - unstoppable, unbeatable, and unbelievable.

comments (0)

THE LIVES OF OTHERS [2007] - Compelling!

Cast: Ulrich Mühe, Sebastian Koch, Martina Gedeck

Director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Screenplay: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck

Running time: 2 hrs 18 mins

Genre: Foreign Film/Drama/Thriller


CRITIQUE:


For a time, when THE LIVES OF OTHERS bagged last year’s Oscar’s Best Foreign Film, beating out the highly-acclaimed and the most deserving PAN’S LABYRINTH, for many it was a form of injustice in the making – well, at least for those who haven’t seen this German film. Whatever sophistication one could think of the latter, the former is surely blessed not only of sophistication but also of masterclass and towering audacity. In fact, THE LIVES OF OTHERS brims with sheer intelligence and a compelling touch of humanity that would not leave the house dry without tears, for anyone with a heart to feel and a brain to think. Now it’s unfair to say PAN’S LABYRINTH should have received the triumph, when THE LIVES OF OTHERS deserved so much more, even more than an Oscar win could give to a film.


Here is a tale that focuses on Captain Weisler (Ulrich Mühe), hard-faced, stubborn, buttoned-up apparatchik responsible on spying for suspicious citizens. If it sounds like Big Brother, then coincidentally, the year is set in the Orwellian 1984 when East Germany was seething with paranoia over its nation and strangling its citizens with fierce grip, quelling the rising tide of nonconformists. The Wall was still up, and the measure taken was to spy on its citizens, hence the ill-famed “Stasi”. However, this political madness only serves as a backdrop to an astounding story of redemption, morality and the finding of voice in a time of suppression. Sometime, somewhere up in a loft, there is a man on headphones, warily listening to every sound and movement of two supposedly suspicious citizens, one a playwright (Sebastian Koch) and his girlfriend, a stage actress (Martina Gedeck). But as slowly as their lives unfold, Weisler commits something unintended to happen: he becomes involve and entangled in the lives of these others. He soon questions the morality of his employment, and fights for these two voices who seek for artistic freedom in a society who fears about it.


Captain Weisler is such an astonishing character to watch, and the late Ulrich Mühe (the renowned German actor passed away from stomach cancer a month after this film bagged an Oscar) plays him with unbelievable compassion. From the beginning of the film, we see him as a buttoned-up, authoritative man faced with responsibilities he must carry, who has no life of his own, who just listen to other peoples’ lives, but then two hours later of the film, Mühe achieves to pull off a stunning character arch almost impossible to be pulled out of such a character we’ve been introduced two hours ago. He completely becomes human, not a regimented political robot, whose face is a testament to emotional restraint. This might be a performance and a character as immense and remarkable as Liam Neeson’s Oskar Schindler in Steven Spielberg’s masterpiece SCHINDLER’S LIST. The last scene in the film, in a quiet, dignified manner, Mühe’s swansong performance strikes wholly different and creates a stir that’s unforgettable – a poignant impression.


But the plaudits share to the director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, quite a mouthful of a name, probably some won’t even remember it, but definitely a director of refined skill. He does not only give THE LIVES OF OTHERS a sizzling and gripping atmosphere of thriller, but he delves deeper into the humanity of his characters. He builds his story in a careful, unhurried manner, yet creates tension expertly scene by scene. Meanwhile, what really remains as a great imprint is the film’s vital, moving message about the sacrifice of artistic souls in the era which doesn’t understand freedom of speech, and the compassion of one man who sees the good in the darkest of evils.


THE FINAL WORD:


This is one brilliant film made, told with most compassion and bravery. THE LIVES OF OTHERS is a mesmerising thriller, riveting drama crafted with a dazzlingly heart-wrenching climax that will stay with you possibly forever.



RATING: A+



comments (0)

CLOVERFIELD [2008]

Cast: Michael Stahl-David, Mike Vogel, Odette Yustman, Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas

Director: Matt Reeves

Screenplay: Drew Goddard

Running time: 1 hr 25 mins

Genre: Suspense/Sci-fi/Pseudo-Documentary


CRITIQUE:


By now, probably the whole world knows what CLOVERFIELD is all about. It’s that film that was secretly campaigned through the invisible wires of internet, coming from an unknown source, as though it was a form of viral marketing that infested the web all of a sudden. Trailer leaks, hushed shoots, and secretive operation; it made anyone with a computer and a mouse clicking and trailing the mystery in a hyperactive frenzy. Now the secret is out. For some, they call it “that shaky monster-movie”. But to the world of cinema, CLOVERFIELD is that brief, impulsive, transfixing experience that rarely, and distinctly, blesses the silverscreen. Calling it a monster-movie is only justifiable. Calling it bland is murder.


There’s no denial that the concept is a clever one that most filmmakers would stab to come up upon. Rip off GODZILLA and let’s shot the film via THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT. Really, it’s only part of the plan: CLOVERFIELD’s essence is not to play epic scale on its audience but rather show the terrifyingly unfolding events through withheld camcorder, almost so tangible you could almost find yourself believing it. Of course, who would not relate this concept as a resonance to America’s haunting 9/11 nightmare, and since the terror is fresh, to the post-9/11 world, it’s almost as real as terror right in front of our eyes. One irrefutable instance of this is when the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty goes careering into the scene, and it stumbles to the audience that intuitive pathos of a nightmare difficult to forget.


For anyone expecting a story with moving emotions, sweeping hero’s rescuing damsels in distress amid a heartbreaking score, you might as well pop up a KING KONG DVD in your local home entertainment system. CLOVERFIELD is as simplistic as it is plausible: one bloke named Rob (Michael Stahl-David) gets a surprise party in his flat and in the middle of the merriment comes an unexpected blast from nowhere. New York is under attack. Characters starts to chase into the streets for survival, but our hero Rob runs to find his girl and struggles to save her. Enter frighteningly gripping scenes. From the collapsing of the bridge, to the tight, breath-hitching dark tunnel scene, to the rescue in the nearly-falling building – it’s all captured in a very convincing “shaky” photography as though it was Danny Boyle all over again in his unnerving 28 DAYS LATER. Nevertheless, CLOVERFIELD is so unnerving you probably can’t remember how many times you have held your breath throughout the film.


Where JJ Abrams excels as a major producer, concealing this template as though he suddenly own the web-sphere, it’s actually Matt Reeves who should get the plaudits for being the man behind the lens. It’s all deceptive, from the rocket explosions, to the fiery mushroom clouds, even the crumbling buildings and havoc everywhere, it all seamlessly blend into the view. The monster, also, is a cunning decision not to be divulged straight away. Keeping it away from the camera makes it more believable, reducing audience to be gawk at news reels, a glimpse of a leg here, a tail there; which makes it all the more effective. Knowing it’s there but not seeing it provides real fear more imaginable than seeing GODZILLA beside Empire State Building. However, the most brilliant production resolve of all is not to over-exert the presence of the monster (which looked like a gigantic spidery-parasite by the way, oops spoiler!) but to use it as part of the background and focus on this group of individuals experiencing the terror enshrouding the city.


By the moment the film ends and shows us a quiet black screen, somebody just moaned in the cinema “Is that it?”, probably dissatisfied. It should be prominently thrust into these movie audiences that CLOVERFIELD isn’t about grand, lavish production. There’s no apology to say that people who wasn’t alarmed even a little bit by this don’t get the main essence of the film itself. Here is a different piece of cinema that is unique and spontaneous that plays on human beings’ primal terror. And who says scenes of terrorism is captured by professional cameraman’s, let alone visionary movie directors? Reality check: from the movie’s very beginning (showing the U.S. Security reel) to the its very last shot – it echoes that true scenes of terror are captured by the Youtube generation, amateur people with camera mobiles, kids on the streets who happen to be holding videocams, and so on. And mostly, unapologetically, CLOVERFIELD never explains the reason of the terror’s existence. It doesn’t need to. As far as the world is concerned, as soon as we experience terror, there’s no explanation; there is only terror and threat.


THE FINAL WORD:


Infuriating camera movements are not flaws but reasons to an existence of a much more infuriatingly brilliant concept. It takes a genre and a B-movie element, then pins it down to Earth’s level with fear-provoking realism. CLOVERFIELD might cause grunts, groans and grumbles to unperceptive audience – but, man, have I been so gripped from start to finish.


RATING: A-


comments (0)

NORBIT [2007] - Dreadful...

Cast: Eddie Murphy, Thandie Newton, Cuba Gooding Jr.

Director: Brian Robbins

Screenplay: Jay Scherick

Running time: 1 hr 42 mins

Genre: Comedy


CRITIQUE:


Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to 2007’s worst movie. That’s no good news for comedy veteran Eddie Murphy, where his recent effort falls flat into the doomed ground of unfunny supposed-to-be comedies. Although decency is not really mandatory in cinema, as we’ve seen a lot of film without any, NORBIT borders the line between shameless chuckles and discomforting arse pain, where you have to sit down and painfully put up with its crass and crude silliness, checking yourself whether you’re absently laughing on its horrible meaninglessness or cringing from its awful pretence.


There are fart jokes, fat jokes, race jokes, sex jokes, marital jokes, and the list could extend all the way to those people who appreciate such kind of things. NORBIT is, in fact, abundant of them. Despite of its titular character, whose soft-spoken behaviour leads him to devastation in marrying a black giant, it is actually the hippopotamus – er, sorry – the wild-mannered, big black woman by the name of Rasputia who gets the central attraction. Apparently, in the movie world, fat people are taken as a joke. So when Norbit (Eddie Murphy) marries Rasputia (a womanised version of Eddie Murphy plus fat suits), we imagine a barbeque stick and a pork loin having a relationship, plausibility in question. And when childhood love returns home, Kate (Thandie Newton), Rasputia becomes scarier than ever as Norbit tries to break free from her massive grip.


It’s even scarier to think that three great talents have been direfully exploited in this shithole. For one, Eddie Murphy (who seem to follow footsteps of Halle Berry to her CATWOMAN disaster after Oscar triumph in MONSTER’S BALL) is wasting his talent in this mess. His DREAMGIRLS’ Jimmy Early has been a testament to his glorious caper as an actor, but like any other actors, they do have to go through the bad times. Same as Cuba Gooding Jr, whose Oscar Best Supporting Actor statue seemed to have been ignored from his mantelpiece. Finally, Thandie Newton, sorry Thandie but you’re better for choices like this.



THE FINAL WORD:


This bum-numbing, jaw-paralysing annoyance serves as a bitter fact to the cruel world that appalling movies still do exist. Fat suit prosthetics are prolific, seemingly to cover thinly conceived characters. NORBIT should have a tagline that goes ‘Eddie Murphy in his career jeopardy’.


RATING: F

comments (0)

DISTURBIA [2007]

Cast: Shia LaBeouf, Carrie Ann Moss, Sarah Roemer, David Morse

Director: DJ Caruso

Screenplay: Christopher Landon

Running time: 1 hr 44 mins

Genre: Thriller/Teenage


REVIEW:


By the looks and sounds of DISTURBIA, we know we’ve seen and heard it before. Disturbance in a suburban neighbourhood – now that could be a whole new genre of its own. With the quirks of title fusion, it may well fully represent the film itself; hip, self-aware and a good addition to the list of the new generation lexicon. The film, however, is a pedestrian affair. Some thrills might be present but it doesn’t come quite close to what it really want to achieve at the first place, whether it’s a sophisticated thriller or a teenage misadventures-cum-romance. The result is a confused caper with uneven tones all over.


Partly, it delivers a Hitchcockian atmosphere (some even calling it an uncredited obvious remake of Hitchcock’s REAR WINDOW). An alienated teenager, as it starts with the unlikely hero Kale (Shia LeBeouf), whose grounded status only pushes him to pick up his telescope and start watching the neighbours’ daily lives, including a hot girl-next-door. A murder mystery then ensues as missing women started hitting the newspaper front page, and one coincidental fact: the loner bloke next door puts blood-spattered body bags in his garage. It’s truly a scary concept, to realise that the person next to your house is actually killing people as easy and as naturally as eating meals. But as the story unfolds, the group of teenagers started strutting around a la Sherlock Holmes, the more holes appear in the plot with the psychopath played by David Morse suddenly turns up in places as though he’s über-psychic-aware , like Big Brother. It’s no denial Morse plays him with calmness and grace, but one couldn’t help but pity the character’s two-dimensionality. DISTURBIA only becomes worse when it climaxes into the old-school horror territory, cue disappointment, where it abruptly turns into a slasher flick. DJ Caruso managed the thrills with skill, but certainly no Hitchcock art of scare.


While it goes downhill on its extended denouement, where DISTURBIA really excels is in the cautionary tale territory. Hormonal rampages and urges are hard to resist, but when one starts go beyond watching that turns into voyeurism, just watch your back.


VERDICT:


Except for the implausible climax, it’s an effective thriller. However, it cannot compensate its lack of consistency. DISTURBIA is mainly a fleeting experience, mostly shouldered by Shia LeBeouf’s presence, and only leaves a caution to peeping toms for the Youtube generation.


RATING: B

comments (0)

STARDUST [2007]

Cast: Claire Danes, Charlie Cox, Michelle Pfeiffer, Sienna Miller, Robert De Niro, Mark Strong, Peter O’Toole, Ricky Gervais, Rupert Everett

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Screenplay: Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman

Running time: 2 hrs 10 mins

Genre: Fantasy/Adventure/Romance


REVIEW:


When it comes to fantasy flicks, it feels as though every nook and cranny of the genre has already been captured by the prototypes of LORD OF THE RINGS, HARRY POTTER, or even the squeakily less-mature NARNIA. And when it comes to fantasy-slash-romance, THE PRINCESS BRIDE soars close to the top. It takes a whole new breed of fantasy to completely revolutionise the genre. STARDUST, meanwhile, is nothing new. In fact, most of its scenes remind us of other fantasy films. Nevertheless, this is fantasy with fun, which felt like a homage or throwback to those yesteryears before cinema made such glorious fantasy movies. Silly plot, ridiculous characters, magic that defies the laws of reality, but STARDUST is a campy, wicked adventure nonetheless.


Based on the novel by Neil Gaiman, whose surreal imagination is a gift but doesn’t appeal to the masses, this is the first filmic adaptation based on his story that truly enlivens the attention of the crowd. Here is a tale of Tristan Thorne (newcomer Brit act, Charlie Cox) who oaths to retrieve the falling star for the hand of the girl he loves Victoria (played by the grumpy yet a beauty, Sienna Miller). With this, he has to cross the Wall, which divides England from the faerie land Stormhold, only to discover that the fallen star is in the form of a woman named Yvaine (Claire Danes in practised British accent).


There are many subplots but most of them are pleasurable to watch and know, including the three wicked witch led by Lamia (Michelle Pfeiffer in an enjoyable performance), whose search for everlasting youth and beauty finally comes in fulfilment with Yvaine’s heart to compensate for their sagging and wrinkled catastrophe. Also the tale of the doomed seven princes of the Kingdom where each brother has to kill the other for the sake of the crown, worn by the King (Peter O’Toole, briefly in a cameo), and they are cursed to watch the murders until the one true heir comes to the throne. This provides comic relief, to be honest. These subplots rings very true to Shakespeare’s HAMLET (of course, Gaiman is a fanatic of Shakespeare), and surely enough, one character is named after the legendary English writer-poet in the form of a sky-pirate, Captain Shakespeare (Robert De Niro in his literally jaunty demeanour), a rowdy and gruff pirate outside yet yearns for the posh tea and colourful costumes inside. De Niro must have had fun playing this transvestite pirate. Still, thankfully, villains are played with spark by Pfeiffer and Mark Strong’s Prince Septimus, also hot on the heels with the fallen star.


Because of too many characters, this is also a film filled with many cameos: Ricky Gervais from Brit sitcom EXTRAS as the comic merchant-turned-duck-squawking-dumb, Rupert Everett as the doomed prince Secundus, and Peter O’Toole in his brief appearance as Stormhold’s King. Ian McKellen, whose voice has probably now been a template for fantasy narration, lends his own deep drawl for the narrative.


Matthew Vaugh, after his first directorial effort of LAYER CAKE, hops into a different genre and tackles this tricksy material of STARDUST. Quite certainly, he pinned down Gaiman’s imagination to appeal to a wider audience and snuck up the gloom and darkness out of sight. The result – a fanciful romp and storytelling flow that is not boring and continues to entertain up to the very last reel. The tinge of romance is not overused but managed well. Although this is eyebrow-raising fantasy (a star in the shape of a woman with a British accent?), we could come to full terms that is indeed “fantasy” therefore anything can happen when the writer says so. It’s also accompanied with a sweeping score that seem to climax every 5 minutes in the film, which is lively and thrilling. However, in terms of plot, flaws seem to exist everywhere as characters turn up in places in the coincidence of time, or perhaps plot device.


VERDICT:


Plot strands not intact but weaves a flighty, pleasurable entertainment all throughout. This well-cast fantasy flick provides nods to good ‘ol days of storytelling and also proves that Peter Jackson’s New Zealand is not only the place where this kind of films are made, but also in the landscapes of Britain too.


RATING: B+

comments (0)

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN [2007] - Superb!

Cast: Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, Javier Bardem, Kelly McDonald

Director: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Screenplay: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

Running time: 2 hrs 2 mins

Genre: Western/Thriller/Drama/Adaptation


REVIEW:


Heaven be thy judge: why such a ruthless, violent film feels like a blessing from high above? Why a breathtakingly tense thriller feels like a gust of fresh air? Ironic, it is. But whether you agree with the critics and sing ‘hossanah in the highest’ that this film is the year’s best, or be one of the non-conformists of artsy cinema who compels to argue that TRANSFORMERS is indeed the year’s finest, then pack it all up and start revising your movie bible, maybe you’ll find some enlightenment. Argue this to the Coen brothers, and they’d probably send Chigurh and his oxygen-tank to your doorstep.


We know a film is truly something by the looks and feel of it in its first few scenes, and true enough, here in NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, in the first five minutes we see gorgeously parched Western cinematography. Not the first five minutes in, we already see an act so violent that it plays on your fears and nightmares. Evil is embodied in its purest form in the character of Anton Chigurh (the heart-poundingly brilliant and creepy performance by Javier Bardem), the fix-it guy cum assassin hired to retrieve a stash of cash from a drug deal in an isolated desert spot. Aside from his freakish haircut, and looks that could kill, he brings with him a slaughterhouse compressed-air tank, his weapon of choice, to mercilessly kill anyone that stands against him and the money in one silent shot of compacted air – dead body on the floor. He definitely looks like Satan in a black jacket and leather boots, roaming around the locale, tossing coin to anyone he meets, whose lives lie in the fate of the coin. There has probably been no other character in movie history that evokes the purity of evil since the frightening Hannibal Lecter by Anthony Hopkins. Now with added aplomb. Cheers Bardem for causing us movie nightmares – that terrifying grin, sends shivers.


The doomed core of the story is Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin in an act so meek and substantial), who discovers a pile of money in a drug-deal gone-wrong scene, eerie atmosphere of dead bodies scattered along the scabrous sands. Of course, like any human would do, he grabs the money and runs. He realises too late that he can’t hide. It’s this moralistic cautionary tale that centres on Moss that humans are doomed to face choices, like Chigurh’s random-toss-of-a-coin principle, anybody’s fate depends on it. And so suffers his almost-naive wife played by Scot actress Kelly McDonald, perfecting a Texan drawl.


Then there’s the good copper Ed Tom Bell (hauntingly portrayed by Tommy Lee Jones), whose tired, saggy lines on his face reflects the battles and weariness he’d gone through in his life, straightening the crooked ways of the country. In the final scene, where it really penny-drops upon us why this is called NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, as some might go cerebral of the ending and start going “what-the--?”, Ed’s heavily carved face contemplates on his retirement and the upshot of the recent crime event, he questions the ethos of the slowly-ruining country that is America, the questions of morals that thy fathers handed down being degraded into something that all about violence, quick-fix, and irreverence.


The Coen brothers have got to be thanked for this. A film like this could catapult cinema-making principles at its staunchest. This could have easily wandered off being an action film, but the Coen brothers made sure that they steered each and every shot into the unhurried yet lurid, calm yet shocking territories of a breathless, taut thriller. It’s a cat-and-mouse plot, yet a plot that’s handled so expertly, frame-by-frame calculated into a perfect timing of suffocating atmosphere. One amazingly handled scene was Llewelyn Moss’s discovery of the drug-deal scene. The directors opted not to blend in musical score but rather settle on a eerily quiet, meditative atmosphere that only amplifies every minute of sound created: the walking footsteps on wooden floor, the sound of boots treading gravel, the noise of flies zooming around, the whisper of the wind, and so on. And the staggeringly complex chase through Western landscapes, dreary motels, and bleak empty streets at night, it is no-holds-bar suspense. You’ve got to love the Coens, they could teach filmmaker-slash-dunderheads how to make an effective thriller, with added pathos.


VERDICT:


A breath-hitching, relentless thriller, a burning drama, a modern contemplation on America – and most of all, a prototype of sheer immaculate filmmaking, NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN is clearly one of the year’s very best. Believe the critical hype.



RATING: A


comments (0)

Book Review: THE CURIOUS INCIDENT OF THE DOG IN THE NIGHT-TIME by Mark Haddon

What a delightful thought it could be when something so small and simple becomes so extraordinary. Especially when you read a book with no expectation at the start and closed the final page realising that there’s a warm flutter in your heart. Especially when you come to think of it that it was a children’s book you’ve just read. Nonetheless, as famous writers of our world say, never underestimate the power of a children’s novel.


This is a tale focused on a central character by the name of Christopher Boone. He’s 15 years old, a teenager but yet unlike any other teenager. He has Aspesger’s Syndrome, which according to Wikipedia, delete-if-applicable, is “an autism spectrum disorder characterised by difficulties in social interaction and by restricted, stereotyped interests and activities”. Here is a world seen by a viewpoint of an autistic teenager, all complexity reduced to being wholesomely translated in a mind of a child with the quirkiness of logic. Raised by his widowed father in the suburbs of Swindon, England, he’s not without capabilities. He excels in Math, has an extremely excellent logic, but has colour problems and hates yellow and brown. He doesn’t understand facial expressions, fears physical contact, and most of all, very anti-social. But when one night, as the title suggests quite literally, when Christopher discovers the neighbour dog stabbed with pitchfork and dead on the lawn, he embarks in a journey that would turn his whole world upside down in a self-discovery that is heartbreaking, heart-tugging, and heartwarming.


Soon he becomes Sherlock Holmes, solving the mystery of the dog, and on the way, finding bitter truths about his father, his mother and the messy, sad life he’s in, that everything is not what it seems to be – that the world is not black and white, but all in the shades of grey.


Cunningly, Mark Haddon is not a psychological expert but he evokes astounding emotions limited in the eyes of this autistic child and his words are nothing but straightforward, precise-sharp, and no-nonsense narrative yet creates a depth beneath his tale a very human core. It is very funny too, edged with humour and logical sensibilities that you might have never noticed before in your entire life which would make you laugh; embarrassing to the readers as its utterly honest, and uplifting to an extreme you wanted to be absorbed inside the book and help this kid.


But where Haddon really triumphs is that he never made Christopher a piteous character: instead he gives us an admirable character with courage and hope despite of his inabilities and limitations. One powerful part of the story is where Christopher had an uncontrollable tantrum and hit his father severely and then blacked out. But when he gathered consciousness, he realised he had bruised his father, but in spite of that, the father just held out his open palm in front of Christopher (as the child doesn’t understand physical contact, i.e. hugging), and Christopher opened his palm back – and that was their hug. Brilliantly evoked and captivatingly moving. There’s no reason why such a book shouldn’t be read by millions across the scale of human existence.


VERDICT:


A story about a child’s autism set against a troubled world is a kaleidoscopic experience yet an engaging read – and it’s also one of the most human, most powerfully moving children’s novel I’ve ever read in my entire two-decade-spanning life. Guess what the moral lesson is: even adults should read this, and if you’re human, and not some robot belonging to a factory somewhere, you’re welcome to shed some grateful tears that your life is probably better than this kid Christopher’s.



RATING: A+

comments (0)

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)